ArticleScience China. Life sciences2014
Algorithms for network-based identification of differential regulators from transcriptome data: a systematic evaluation.
Article in Science China. Life sciences, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Enhanced identification of significant regulators of gene expression.BMC bioinformatics · 2020Article
- REGGAE: a novel approach for the identification of key transcriptional regulators.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2018Article
- Article
- NCG 5.0: updates of a manually curated repository of cancer genes and associated properties from cancer mutational screenings.Nucleic acids research · 2016Article
- Differential Regulatory Analysis Based on Coexpression Network in Cancer Research.BioMed research international · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Identification of differential regulators is critical to understand the dynamics of cellular systems and molecular mechanisms of diseases. Several computational algorithms have recently been developed for this purpose by using transcriptome and network data. However, it remains largely unclear which algorithm performs better under a specific condition. Such knowledge is important for both appropriate application and future enhancement of these algorithms. Here, we systematically evaluated seven main algorithms (TED, TDD, TFactS, RIF1, RIF2, dCSA_t2t, and dCSA_r2t), using both simulated and real datasets. In our simulation evaluation, we artificially inactivated either a single regulator or multiple regulators and examined how well each algorithm detected known gold standard regulators. We found that all these algorithms could effectively discern signals arising from regulatory network differences, indicating the validity of our simulation schema. Among the seven tested algorithms, TED and TFactS were placed first and second when both discrimination accuracy and robustness against data variation were considered. When applied to two independent lung cancer datasets, both TED and TFactS replicated a substantial fraction of their respective differential regulators. Since TED and TFactS rely on two distinct features of transcriptome data, namely differential co-expression and differential expression, both may be applied as mutual references during practical application.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.