ArticlePloS one2015
Method designed to respect molecular heterogeneity can profoundly correct present data interpretations for genome-wide expression analysis.
Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Genotypes of cancer stem cells characterized by epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition and proliferation related functions.Scientific reports · 2016Article
- Advances in neonatal screening for primary immune deficiencies.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Although genome-wide expression analysis has become a routine tool for gaining insight into molecular mechanisms, extraction of information remains a major challenge. It has been unclear why standard statistical methods, such as the t-test and ANOVA, often lead to low levels of reproducibility, how likely applying fold-change cutoffs to enhance reproducibility is to miss key signals, and how adversely using such methods has affected data interpretations. We broadly examined expression data to investigate the reproducibility problem and discovered that molecular heterogeneity, a biological property of genetically different samples, has been improperly handled by the statistical methods. Here we give a mathematical description of the discovery and report the development of a statistical method, named HTA, for better handling molecular heterogeneity. We broadly demonstrate the improved sensitivity and specificity of HTA over the conventional methods and show that using fold-change cutoffs has lost much information. We illustrate the especial usefulness of HTA for heterogeneous diseases, by applying it to existing data sets of schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and Parkinson's disease, and show it can abundantly and reproducibly uncover disease signatures not previously detectable. Based on 156 biological data sets, we estimate that the methodological issue has affected over 96% of expression studies and that HTA can profoundly correct 86% of the affected data interpretations. The methodological advancement can better facilitate systems understandings of biological processes, render biological inferences that are more reliable than they have hitherto been and engender translational medical applications, such as identifying diagnostic biomarkers and drug prediction, which are more robust.
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.