ArticlePloS one2018
A new method for evaluating the impacts of semantic similarity measures on the annotation of gene sets.
Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- PolyQ length co-evolution in neural proteins.NAR genomics and bioinformatics · 2021Article
- A literature-based approach for curating gene signatures in multifaceted diseases.Journal of translational medicine · 2020Article
- GSAn: an alternative to enrichment analysis for annotating gene sets.NAR genomics and bioinformatics · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
motivationThe recent revolution in new sequencing technologies, as a part of the continuous process of adopting new innovative protocols has strongly impacted the interpretation of relations between phenotype and genotype. Thus, understanding the resulting gene sets has become a bottleneck that needs to be addressed. Automatic methods have been proposed to facilitate the interpretation of gene sets. While statistical functional enrichment analyses are currently well known, they tend to focus on well-known genes and to ignore new information from less-studied genes. To address such issues, applying semantic similarity measures is logical if the knowledge source used to annotate the gene sets is hierarchically structured. In this work, we propose a new method for analyzing the impact of different semantic similarity measures on gene set annotations.
resultsWe evaluated the impact of each measure by taking into consideration the two following features that correspond to relevant criteria for a "good" synthetic gene set annotation: (i) the number of annotation terms has to be drastically reduced and the representative terms must be retained while annotating the gene set, and (ii) the number of genes described by the selected terms should be as large as possible. Thus, we analyzed nine semantic similarity measures to identify the best possible compromise between both features while maintaining a sufficient level of details. Using Gene Ontology to annotate the gene sets, we obtained better results with node-based measures that use the terms' characteristics than with measures based on edges that link the terms. The annotation of the gene sets achieved with the node-based measures did not exhibit major differences regardless of the characteristics of terms used.
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.