Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36153614›Full record

ArticleBMC biology2022

Improved biomarker discovery through a plot twist in transcriptomic data analysis.

Núria Sánchez-Baizán, Laia Ribas, Francesc Piferrer

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC biology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed
4.3field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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

38 citing papers in PubMed, 51 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Mechanism of Action ofBiology · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Transcriptome Analysis of Potato (Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Núria Sánchez-BaizánInstitut de Ciències del Mar (ICM), Spanish National Research Council (CSIC), Barcelona, Passeig Marítim, 37-49, 08003, Barcelona, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-3722-5188
Laia RibasInstitut de Ciències del Mar (ICM), Spanish National Research Council (CSIC), Barcelona, Passeig Marítim, 37-49, 08003, Barcelona, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-5538-6236
Francesc PiferrerInstitut de Ciències del Mar (ICM), Spanish National Research Council (CSIC), Barcelona, Passeig Marítim, 37-49, 08003, Barcelona, Spain. piferrer@icm.csic.es.ORCID 0000-0003-0903-4736
Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTranscriptomic analysis is crucial for understanding the functional elements of the genome, with the classic method consisting of screening transcriptomics datasets for differentially expressed genes (DEGs). Additionally, since 2005, weighted gene co-expression network analysis (WGCNA) has emerged as a powerful method to explore relationships between genes. However, an approach combining both methods, i.e., filtering the transcriptome dataset by DEGs or other criteria, followed by WGCNA (DEGs + WGCNA), has become common. This is of concern because such approach can affect the resulting underlying architecture of the network under analysis and lead to wrong conclusions. Here, we explore a plot twist to transcriptome data analysis: applying WGCNA to exploit entire datasets without affecting the topology of the network, followed with the strength and relative simplicity of DEG analysis (WGCNA + DEGs). We tested WGCNA + DEGs against DEGs + WGCNA to publicly available transcriptomics data in one of the most transcriptomically complex tissues and delicate processes: vertebrate gonads undergoing sex differentiation. We further validate the general applicability of our approach through analysis of datasets from three distinct model systems: European sea bass, mouse, and human.

resultsIn all cases, WGCNA + DEGs clearly outperformed DEGs + WGCNA. First, the network model fit and node connectivity measures and other network statistics improved. The gene lists filtered by each method were different, the number of modules associated with the trait of interest and key genes retained increased, and GO terms of biological processes provided a more nuanced representation of the biological question under consideration. Lastly, WGCNA + DEGs facilitated biomarker discovery.

conclusionsWe propose that building a co-expression network from an entire dataset, and only thereafter filtering by DEGs, should be the method to use in transcriptomic studies, regardless of biological system, species, or question being considered.

Indexed as

Data AnalysisTranscriptomeAnimalsBiomarkersGene Expression ProfilingGene Regulatory NetworksHumansMiceBiomarkersBiomarker discoveryGene expression analysisGene networksGonadal developmentSex determination and differentiationWeighted gene co-expression network analysis (WGCNA)

Identifiers

PMID36153614
PMCPMC9509653
OpenAlexW4296946427

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.