Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39231608›Full record

ArticleGenome research2024

A best-match approach for gene set analyses in embedding spaces.

Lechuan Li, Ruth Dannenfelser, Charlie Cruz, Vicky Yao

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genome research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Lechuan LiDepartment of Computer Science, Rice University, Houston, Texas 77005, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9652-7074
Ruth DannenfelserDepartment of Computer Science, Rice University, Houston, Texas 77005, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-8766-6424
Charlie CruzDepartment of Computer Science, Rice University, Houston, Texas 77005, USA.
Vicky YaoDepartment of Computer Science, Rice University, Houston, Texas 77005, USA vy@rice.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-3201-9983

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Embedding methods have emerged as a valuable class of approaches for distilling essential information from complex high-dimensional data into more accessible lower-dimensional spaces. Applications of embedding methods to biological data have demonstrated that gene embeddings can effectively capture physical, structural, and functional relationships between genes. However, this utility has been primarily realized by using gene embeddings for downstream machine-learning tasks. Much less has been done to examine the embeddings directly, especially analyses of gene sets in embedding spaces. Here, we propose an Algorithm for Network Data Embedding and Similarity (ANDES), a novel best-match approach that can be used with existing gene embeddings to compare gene sets while reconciling gene set diversity. This intuitive method has important downstream implications for improving the utility of embedding spaces for various tasks. Specifically, we show how ANDES, when applied to different gene embeddings encoding protein-protein interactions, can be used as a novel overrepresentation- and rank-based gene set enrichment analysis method that achieves state-of-the-art performance. Additionally, ANDES can use multiorganism joint gene embeddings to facilitate functional knowledge transfer across organisms, allowing for phenotype mapping across model systems. Our flexible, straightforward best-match methodology can be extended to other embedding spaces with diverse community structures between set elements.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsAnimalsComputational BiologyGene Regulatory NetworksHumansMachine Learning

Identifiers

PMID39231608
PMCPMC11529866

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.