Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31784565›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2019

The role and robustness of the Gini coefficient as an unbiased tool for the selection of Gini genes for normalising expression profiling data.

Marina Wright Muelas, Farah Mughal, Steve O'Hagan, Philip J Day, Douglas B Kell

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing 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

30 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Hebb's Vision: The Structural Underpinnings of Hebbian Assemblies.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. What are housekeeping genes?PLoS computational biology · 2022
    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

5 authors.

Marina Wright MuelasDepartment of Biochemistry, Institute of Integrative Biology, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, University of Liverpool, Crown Street, Liverpool, L69 7ZB, UK. m.wright-muelas@liverpool.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4775-4358
Farah MughalDepartment of Biochemistry, Institute of Integrative Biology, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, University of Liverpool, Crown Street, Liverpool, L69 7ZB, UK.
Steve O'HaganSchool of Chemistry, Department of Chemistry, The Manchester Institute of Biotechnology 131, Princess Street, Manchester, M1 7DN, UK.
Philip J DayThe Manchester Institute of Biotechnology, 131, Princess Street, Manchester, M1 7DN, UK. Philip.J.Day@manchester.ac.uk.
Douglas B KellDepartment of Biochemistry, Institute of Integrative Biology, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, University of Liverpool, Crown Street, Liverpool, L69 7ZB, UK. dbk@liv.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5838-7963

Funding

RCUK | Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) BB/P009042/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We recently introduced the Gini coefficient (GC) for assessing the expression variation of a particular gene in a dataset, as a means of selecting improved reference genes over the cohort ('housekeeping genes') typically used for normalisation in expression profiling studies. Those genes (transcripts) that we determined to be useable as reference genes differed greatly from previous suggestions based on hypothesis-driven approaches. A limitation of this initial study is that a single (albeit large) dataset was employed for both tissues and cell lines. We here extend this analysis to encompass seven other large datasets. Although their absolute values differ a little, the Gini values and median expression levels of the various genes are well correlated with each other between the various cell line datasets, implying that our original choice of the more ubiquitously expressed low-Gini-coefficient genes was indeed sound. In tissues, the Gini values and median expression levels of genes showed a greater variation, with the GC of genes changing with the number and types of tissues in the data sets. In all data sets, regardless of whether this was derived from tissues or cell lines, we also show that the GC is a robust measure of gene expression stability. Using the GC as a measure of expression stability we illustrate its utility to find tissue- and cell line-optimised housekeeping genes without any prior bias, that again include only a small number of previously reported housekeeping genes. We also independently confirmed this experimentally using RT-qPCR with 40 candidate GC genes in a panel of 10 cell lines. These were termed the Gini Genes. In many cases, the variation in the expression levels of classical reference genes is really quite huge (e.g. 44 fold for GAPDH in one data set), suggesting that the cure (of using them as normalising genes) may in some cases be worse than the disease (of not doing so). We recommend the present data-driven approach for the selection of reference genes by using the easy-to-calculate and robust GC.

Indexed as

Gene Expression ProfilingTranscriptomeAlgorithmsCell LineGene ExpressionGenes, EssentialHumansReference Standards

Identifiers

PMID31784565
PMCPMC6884504

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.