Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31684881›Full record

ArticleBMC bioinformatics2019

A comparative study of topology-based pathway enrichment analysis methods.

Jing Ma, Ali Shojaie, George Michailidis

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 48 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
48citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. A practical guide to functional enrichment analysis.Frontiers in bioinformatics · 2026
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Heterogeneous network approaches to protein pathway prediction.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2024
    Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

3 authors.

Jing MaTexas A&M University, Department of Statistics, College Station, 77840, USA. jingma@tamu.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6294-227X
Ali ShojaieUniversity of Washington, Department of Biostatistics, Seattle, 98105, USA.
George MichailidisUniversity of Florida, Department of Statistics, Gainesville, 32611, USA.

Funding

Machine Learning Tools for Discovery and Analysis of Active Metabolic PathwaysR01GM114029 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI SHOJAIE, ALI · 2016 to 2020
$1.7M
Statistical Methods for Network-Based Integrative Analysis of CVD Epigenetic DataK01HL124050 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI SHOJAIE, ALI · 2016 to 2020
$693k
FHCRC High-Performance Computing ClusterS10OD020069 · OD · FRED HUTCHINSON CANCER RESEARCH CENTER · PI KOOPERBERG, CHARLES L · 2015 to 2015
$600k
NHLBI NIH HHS K01 HL124050NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM114029NIH HHS R01 GM114029NIH HHS S10 OD020069NSF DMS-1561814
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPathway enrichment extensively used in the analysis of Omics data for gaining biological insights into the functional roles of pre-defined subsets of genes, proteins and metabolites. A large number of methods have been proposed in the literature for this task. The vast majority of these methods use as input expression levels of the biomolecules under study together with their membership in pathways of interest. The latest generation of pathway enrichment methods also leverages information on the topology of the underlying pathways, which as evidence from their evaluation reveals, lead to improved sensitivity and specificity. Nevertheless, a systematic empirical comparison of such methods is still lacking, making selection of the most suitable method for a specific experimental setting challenging. This comparative study of nine network-based methods for pathway enrichment analysis aims to provide a systematic evaluation of their performance based on three real data sets with different number of features (genes/metabolites) and number of samples.

resultsThe findings highlight both methodological and empirical differences across the nine methods. In particular, certain methods assess pathway enrichment due to differences both across expression levels and in the strength of the interconnectedness of the members of the pathway, while others only leverage differential expression levels. In the more challenging setting involving a metabolomics data set, the results show that methods that utilize both pieces of information (with NetGSA being a prototypical one) exhibit superior statistical power in detecting pathway enrichment.

conclusionThe analysis reveals that a number of methods perform equally well when testing large size pathways, which is the case with genomic data. On the other hand, NetGSA that takes into consideration both differential expression of the biomolecules in the pathway, as well as changes in the topology exhibits a superior performance when testing small size pathways, which is usually the case for metabolomics data.

Indexed as

Computational BiologyGenomicsMetabolomicsDifferential network biologyPathway enrichment analysisPathway topologyPowerType I error

Identifiers

PMID31684881
PMCPMC6829999

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.