Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27896997›Full record

ArticlePacific Symposium on Biocomputing. Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing2017

IMPROVED PERFORMANCE OF GENE SET ANALYSIS ON GENOME-WIDE TRANSCRIPTOMICS DATA WHEN USING GENE ACTIVITY STATE ESTIMATES.

Thomas Kamp, Micah Adams, Craig Disselkoen, Nathan Tintle

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing. Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Thomas KampDepartment of Mathematics, Statistics, and Computer Science, Dordt College Sioux Center, IA 51250, USA, Thomas.Kamp@dordt.edu.
Micah Adams
Craig Disselkoen
Nathan Tintle

Funding

Analyzing the behavior and interpreting the results of gene based tests of rare variant associationR15HG006915 · NHGRI · DORDT COLLEGE · PI TINTLE, NATHAN L · 2012 to 2020
$1.3M
NHGRI NIH HHS R15 HG006915
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Gene set analysis methods continue to be a popular and powerful method of evaluating genome-wide transcriptomics data. These approach require a priori grouping of genes into biologically meaningful sets, and then conducting downstream analyses at the set (instead of gene) level of analysis. Gene set analysis methods have been shown to yield more powerful statistical conclusions than single-gene analyses due to both reduced multiple testing penalties and potentially larger observed effects due to the aggregation of effects across multiple genes in the set. Traditionally, gene set analysis methods have been applied directly to normalized, log-transformed, transcriptomics data. Recently, efforts have been made to transform transcriptomics data to scales yielding more biologically interpretable results. For example, recently proposed models transform log-transformed transcriptomics data to a confidence metric (ranging between 0 and 100%) that a gene is active (roughly speaking, that the gene product is part of an active cellular mechanism). In this manuscript, we demonstrate, on both real and simulated transcriptomics data, that tests for differential expression between sets of genes using are typically more powerful when using gene activity state estimates as opposed to log-transformed gene expression data. Our analysis suggests further exploration of techniques to transform transcriptomics data to meaningful quantities for improved downstream inference.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsComputational BiologyComputer SimulationEscherichia coliGene ExpressionGene Expression ProfilingGenes, BacterialGenome-Wide Association Study

Identifiers

PMID27896997
PMCPMC5153581

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.