ArticleInterdisciplinary sciences, computational life sciences2021
The Performance Comparison of Gene Co-expression Networks of Breast and Prostate Cancer using Different Selection Criteria.
Article in Interdisciplinary sciences, computational life sciences, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Gene co-expression networks (GCN) present undirected relations between genes to understand molecular structures behind the diseases, including cancer. The utilization of various biological datasets and gene network inference (GNI) algorithms can reveal meaningful gene-gene interactions of GCNs. This study applies three GNI algorithms on mRNA gene expression, RNA-Seq, and miRNA-target genes datasets to infer GCNs of breast and prostate cancers. To evaluate the performance of the GCNs, we utilize overlap analysis via literature data, topological assessment, and Gene Ontology-based biological assessment. The results emphasize how the selection of biological datasets and GNI algorithms affect the performance results on different evaluation criteria. GCNs on microarray gene expression data slightly outperform in overlap analysis. Also, GCNs on RNA-Seq and gene expression datasets follow scale-free topology. The biological assessment results are close to each other on all biological datasets. C3NET algorithm-based GCNs did not contain any biological assessment modules; therefore, it is not optimal for biological assessment. GNI algorithms' selection did not change the overlap analysis and topological assessment results. Our primary objective is to compare the performance results of biological datasets and GNI algorithms based on different evaluation criteria. For this purpose, we developed the GNIAP R package that enables users to select different GNI algorithms to infer GCNs. The GNIAP R package also provides literature-based overlap analysis, and topological and biological analyses on GCNs. Users can access the GNIAP R package via https://github.com/ozgurcingiz/GNIAP .
Indexed as
Identifiers
34003445What 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.