Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24569707›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2014

Annotation enrichment analysis: an alternative method for evaluating the functional properties of gene sets.

Kimberly Glass, Michelle Girvan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

31 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Cell reprogramming design by transfer learning of functional transcriptional networks.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Wheat omics: Classical breeding to new breeding technologies.Saudi journal of biological sciences · 2021
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Genomic and Genotypic Characterization ofFrontiers in microbiology · 2018
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Kimberly Glass1] Department of Biostatistics and Computational Biology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA [2] Department of Biostatistics, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA [3] Department of Physics, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA.
Michelle Girvan1] Department of Physics, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA [2] Institute for Physical Science and Technology, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA [3] Santa Fe Institute, Santa Fe, NM.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Gene annotation databases (compendiums maintained by the scientific community that describe the biological functions performed by individual genes) are commonly used to evaluate the functional properties of experimentally derived gene sets. Overlap statistics, such as Fishers Exact test (FET), are often employed to assess these associations, but don't account for non-uniformity in the number of genes annotated to individual functions or the number of functions associated with individual genes. We find FET is strongly biased toward over-estimating overlap significance if a gene set has an unusually high number of annotations. To correct for these biases, we develop Annotation Enrichment Analysis (AEA), which properly accounts for the non-uniformity of annotations. We show that AEA is able to identify biologically meaningful functional enrichments that are obscured by numerous false-positive enrichment scores in FET, and we therefore suggest it be used to more accurately assess the biological properties of gene sets.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsDatabases, ProteinNatural Language ProcessingData MiningMolecular Sequence AnnotationProteomeSequence AnalysisProteome

Identifiers

PMID24569707
PMCPMC3935204

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.