Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26873929›Full record

ArticleBioinformatics (Oxford, England)2016

Gene expression inference with deep learning.

Yifei Chen, Yi Li, Rajiv Narayan, Aravind Subramanian, Xiaohui Xie

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Bioinformatics (Oxford, England), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 162 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
162citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

162 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Inference of Gene-Gene Interaction and Its Function.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2026
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article

102 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

Yifei ChenDepartment of Computer Science, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697, USA Baidu Research-Big Data Lab, Beijing, 100085, China.
Yi LiDepartment of Computer Science, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697, USA.
Rajiv NarayanBroad Institute of MIT And Harvard, Cambridge, MA 02142, USA.
Aravind SubramanianBroad Institute of MIT And Harvard, Cambridge, MA 02142, USA.
Xiaohui XieDepartment of Computer Science, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697, USA Center for Complex Biological Systems, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697, USA.

Funding

Uncover Strategies Used By Biological SystemsP50GM076516 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-IRVINE · PI LANDER, ARTHUR D · 2007 to 2016
$25.1M
NIGMS NIH HHS P50 GM076516
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

motivationLarge-scale gene expression profiling has been widely used to characterize cellular states in response to various disease conditions, genetic perturbations, etc. Although the cost of whole-genome expression profiles has been dropping steadily, generating a compendium of expression profiling over thousands of samples is still very expensive. Recognizing that gene expressions are often highly correlated, researchers from the NIH LINCS program have developed a cost-effective strategy of profiling only ∼1000 carefully selected landmark genes and relying on computational methods to infer the expression of remaining target genes. However, the computational approach adopted by the LINCS program is currently based on linear regression (LR), limiting its accuracy since it does not capture complex nonlinear relationship between expressions of genes.

resultsWe present a deep learning method (abbreviated as D-GEX) to infer the expression of target genes from the expression of landmark genes. We used the microarray-based Gene Expression Omnibus dataset, consisting of 111K expression profiles, to train our model and compare its performance to those from other methods. In terms of mean absolute error averaged across all genes, deep learning significantly outperforms LR with 15.33% relative improvement. A gene-wise comparative analysis shows that deep learning achieves lower error than LR in 99.97% of the target genes. We also tested the performance of our learned model on an independent RNA-Seq-based GTEx dataset, which consists of 2921 expression profiles. Deep learning still outperforms LR with 6.57% relative improvement, and achieves lower error in 81.31% of the target genes. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: D-GEX is available at https://github.com/uci-cbcl/D-GEX CONTACT: xhx@ics.uci.edu SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.

Indexed as

Gene ExpressionGene Expression ProfilingLinear ModelsMachine LearningRNARNA

Identifiers

PMID26873929
PMCPMC4908320

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.