Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35183100›Full record

ArticleBMC bioinformatics2022

csdR, an R package for differential co-expression analysis.

Jakob P Pettersen, Eivind Almaas

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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.

Jakob P PettersenDepartment of Biotechnology and Food Science, NTNU- Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway.
Eivind AlmaasDepartment of Biotechnology and Food Science, NTNU- Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway. eivind.almaas@ntnu.no.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9125-326X

Funding

Norges Forskningsråd 283862
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDifferential co-expression network analysis has become an important tool to gain understanding of biological phenotypes and diseases. The CSD algorithm is a method to generate differential co-expression networks by comparing gene co-expressions from two different conditions. Each of the gene pairs is assigned conserved (C), specific (S) and differentiated (D) scores based on the co-expression of the gene pair between the two conditions. The result of the procedure is a network where the nodes are genes and the links are the gene pairs with the highest C-, S-, and D-scores. However, the existing CSD-implementations suffer from poor computational performance, difficult user procedures and lack of documentation.

resultsWe created the R-package csdR aimed at reaching good performance together with ease of use, sufficient documentation, and with the ability to play well with other tools for data analysis. csdR was benchmarked on a realistic dataset with 20,645 genes. After verifying that the chosen number of iterations gave sufficient robustness, we tested the performance against the two existing CSD implementations. csdR was superior in performance to one of the implementations, whereas the other did not run. Our implementation can utilize multiple processing cores. However, we were unable to achieve more than [Formula: see text]2.7 parallel speedup with saturation reached at about 10 cores.

conclusionThe results suggest that csdR is a useful tool for differential co-expression analysis and is able to generate robust results within a workday on datasets of realistic sizes when run on a workstation or compute server.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsGene Regulatory NetworksCo-expressionGene networkGenome-scaleNetworkR

Identifiers

PMID35183100
PMCPMC8858518

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.