Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25685197›Full record

ArticleBioData mining2015

Differential co-expression network centrality and machine learning feature selection for identifying susceptibility hubs in networks with scale-free structure.

Caleb A Lareau, Bill C White, Ann L Oberg, Brett A McKinney

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BioData mining, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 39 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Consensus features nested cross-validation.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2020
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. STatistical Inference Relief (STIR) feature selection.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2019
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Caleb A LareauTandy School of Computer Science, Department of Mathematics, University of Tulsa, Tulsa, OK USA.
Bill C WhiteTandy School of Computer Science, Department of Mathematics, University of Tulsa, Tulsa, OK USA.
Ann L ObergDivision of Biomedical Statistics and Informatics, Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN USA ; Mayo Clinic Vaccine Research Group, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN USA.
Brett A McKinneyTandy School of Computer Science, Department of Mathematics, University of Tulsa, Tulsa, OK USA ; Laureate Institute for Brain Research, Tulsa, OK USA.
University of Tulsa · USMayo Clinic in Florida · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBiological insights into group differences, such as disease status, have been achieved through differential co-expression analysis of microarray data. Additional understanding of group differences may be achieved by integrating the connectivity structure of the differential co-expression network and per-gene differential expression between phenotypic groups. Such a global differential co-expression network strategy may increase sensitivity to detect gene-gene interactions (or expression epistasis) that may act as candidates for rewiring susceptibility co-expression networks.

methodsWe test two methods for inferring Genetic Association Interaction Networks (GAIN) incorporating both differential co-expression effects and differential expression effects: a generalized linear model (GLM) regression method with interaction effects (reGAIN) and a Fisher test method for correlation differences (dcGAIN). We rank the importance of each gene with complete interaction network centrality (CINC), which integrates each gene's differential co-expression effects in the GAIN model along with each gene's individual differential expression measure. We compare these methods with statistical learning methods Relief-F, Random Forests and Lasso. We also develop a mixture model and permutation approach for determining significant importance score thresholds for network centralities, Relief-F and Random Forest. We introduce a novel simulation strategy that generates microarray case-control data with embedded differential co-expression networks and underlying correlation structure based on scale-free or Erdos-Renyi (ER) random networks.

resultsUsing the network simulation strategy, we find that Relief-F and reGAIN provide the best balance between detecting interactions and main effects, plus reGAIN has the ability to adjust for covariates and model quantitative traits. The dcGAIN approach performs best at finding differential co-expression effects by design but worst for main effects, and it does not adjust for covariates and is limited to dichotomous outcomes. When the underlying network is scale free instead of ER, all interaction network methods have greater power to find differential co-expression effects. We apply these methods to a public microarray study of the differential immune response to influenza vaccine, and we identify effects that suggest a role in influenza vaccine immune response for genes from the PI3K family, which includes genes with known immunodeficiency function, and KLRG1, which is a known marker of senescence.

Identifiers

PMID25685197
PMCPMC4326454
OpenAlexW2119590375

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.