Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29438828›Full record

ArticleMethods (San Diego, Calif.)2018

Bi-clustering of metabolic data using matrix factorization tools.

Quan Gu, Kirill Veselkov

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Methods (San Diego, Calif.), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 30% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. 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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Quan GuMRC-University of Glasgow Centre for Virus Research, University of Glasgow, Garscube Estate, Glasgow G61 1QH, UK.
Kirill VeselkovDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, Sir Alexander Fleming Building, Exhibition Road, South Kensington, London SW7 2AZ, UK. Electronic address: kirill.veselkov04@imperial.ac.uk.
Imperial College London · GBMRC University of Glasgow Centre for Virus Research · GB

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/L020858/1Medical Research Council MC_UU_12014/12
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Metabolic phenotyping technologies based on Nuclear Magnetic Spectroscopy (NMR) and Mass Spectrometry (MS) generate vast amounts of unrefined data from biological samples. Clustering strategies are frequently employed to provide insight into patterns of relationships between samples and metabolites. Here, we propose the use of a non-negative matrix factorization driven bi-clustering strategy for metabolic phenotyping data in order to discover subsets of interrelated metabolites that exhibit similar behaviour across subsets of samples. The proposed strategy incorporates bi-cross validation and statistical segmentation techniques to automatically determine the number and structure of bi-clusters. This alternative approach is in contrast to the widely used conventional clustering approaches that incorporate all molecular peaks for clustering in metabolic studies and require a priori specification of the number of clusters. We perform the comparative analysis of the proposed strategy with other bi-clustering approaches, which were developed in the context of genomics and transcriptomics research. We demonstrate the superior performance of the proposed bi-clustering strategy on both simulated (NMR) and real (MS) bacterial metabolic data.

Indexed as

MetabolomeAlgorithmsCluster AnalysisGene Expression ProfilingMetabolomicsNuclear Magnetic Resonance, BiomolecularBi-clusteringBi-cross validationMatrix factorizationMetabolic data

Identifiers

PMID29438828
PMCPMC6297113
OpenAlexW2790542719

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.