Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25004928›Full record

ArticleBMC bioinformatics2014

A test for comparing two groups of samples when analyzing multiple omics profiles.

Nimisha Chaturvedi, Jelle J Goeman, Judith M Boer, Wessel N van Wieringen, Renée X de Menezes

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

5 authors.

Nimisha ChaturvediEpidemiology and Biostatistics, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. n.chaturvedi@vumc.nl.
Jelle J Goeman
Judith M Boer
Wessel N van Wieringen
Renée X de Menezes

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA number of statistical models has been proposed for studying the association between gene expression and copy number data in integrated analysis. The next step is to compare association patterns between different groups of samples.

resultsWe propose a method, named dSIM, to find differences in association between copy number and gene expression, when comparing two groups of samples. Firstly, we use ridge regression to correct for the baseline associations between copy number and gene expression. Secondly, the global test is applied to the corrected data in order to find differences in association patterns between two groups of samples. We show that dSIM detects differences even in small genomic regions in a simulation study. We also apply dSIM to two publicly available breast cancer datasets and identify chromosome arms where copy number led gene expression regulation differs between positive and negative estrogen receptor samples. In spite of differing genomic coverage, some selected arms are identified in both datasets.

conclusionWe developed a flexible and robust method for studying association differences between two groups of samples while integrating genomic data from different platforms. dSIM can be used with most types of microarray/sequencing data, including methylation and microRNA expression. The method is implemented in R and will be made part of the BioConductor package SIM.

Indexed as

Gene Expression ProfilingBreast NeoplasmsComputational BiologyFemaleGene DosageHumansReceptors, EstrogenReceptors, Estrogen

Identifiers

PMID25004928
PMCPMC4227098

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.