-
Something wrong with this record ?
A critical comparison of topology-based pathway analysis methods
I. Ihnatova, V. Popovici, E. Budinska,
Language English Country United States
Document type Comparative Study, Journal Article, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
NLK
Directory of Open Access Journals
from 2006
Free Medical Journals
from 2006
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
from 2006
PubMed Central
from 2006
Europe PubMed Central
from 2006
ProQuest Central
from 2006-12-01
Open Access Digital Library
from 2006-01-01
Open Access Digital Library
from 2006-10-01
Open Access Digital Library
from 2006-01-01
Medline Complete (EBSCOhost)
from 2008-01-01
Nursing & Allied Health Database (ProQuest)
from 2006-12-01
Health & Medicine (ProQuest)
from 2006-12-01
Public Health Database (ProQuest)
from 2006-12-01
ROAD: Directory of Open Access Scholarly Resources
from 2006
- MeSH
- Databases, Genetic MeSH
- Datasets as Topic MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Metabolic Networks and Pathways * MeSH
- Gene Expression Profiling methods MeSH
- High-Throughput Nucleotide Sequencing MeSH
- Check Tag
- Humans MeSH
- Publication type
- Journal Article MeSH
- Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't MeSH
- Comparative Study MeSH
One of the aims of high-throughput gene/protein profiling experiments is the identification of biological processes altered between two or more conditions. Pathway analysis is an umbrella term for a multitude of computational approaches used for this purpose. While in the beginning pathway analysis relied on enrichment-based approaches, a newer generation of methods is now available, exploiting pathway topologies in addition to gene/protein expression levels. However, little effort has been invested in their critical assessment with respect to their performance in different experimental setups. Here, we assessed the performance of seven representative methods identifying differentially expressed pathways between two groups of interest based on gene expression data with prior knowledge of pathway topologies: SPIA, PRS, CePa, TAPPA, TopologyGSA, Clipper and DEGraph. We performed a number of controlled experiments that investigated their sensitivity to sample and pathway size, threshold-based filtering of differentially expressed genes, ability to detect target pathways, ability to exploit the topological information and the sensitivity to different pre-processing strategies. We also verified type I error rates and described the influence of overexpression of single genes, gene sets and topological motifs of various sizes on the detection of a pathway as differentially expressed. The results of our experiments demonstrate a wide variability of the tested methods. We provide a set of recommendations for an informed selection of the proper method for a given data analysis task.
References provided by Crossref.org
- 000
- 00000naa a2200000 a 4500
- 001
- bmc18010195
- 003
- CZ-PrNML
- 005
- 20180404141902.0
- 007
- ta
- 008
- 180404s2018 xxu f 000 0|eng||
- 009
- AR
- 024 7_
- $a 10.1371/journal.pone.0191154 $2 doi
- 035 __
- $a (PubMed)29370226
- 040 __
- $a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
- 041 0_
- $a eng
- 044 __
- $a xxu
- 100 1_
- $a Ihnatova, Ivana $u RECETOX, Faculty of Science, Masarykova Univerzita, Brno, Czech Republic. Institute of Biostatistics and Analyses, Faculty of Medicine, Masarykova Univerzita, Brno, Czech Republic.
- 245 12
- $a A critical comparison of topology-based pathway analysis methods / $c I. Ihnatova, V. Popovici, E. Budinska,
- 520 9_
- $a One of the aims of high-throughput gene/protein profiling experiments is the identification of biological processes altered between two or more conditions. Pathway analysis is an umbrella term for a multitude of computational approaches used for this purpose. While in the beginning pathway analysis relied on enrichment-based approaches, a newer generation of methods is now available, exploiting pathway topologies in addition to gene/protein expression levels. However, little effort has been invested in their critical assessment with respect to their performance in different experimental setups. Here, we assessed the performance of seven representative methods identifying differentially expressed pathways between two groups of interest based on gene expression data with prior knowledge of pathway topologies: SPIA, PRS, CePa, TAPPA, TopologyGSA, Clipper and DEGraph. We performed a number of controlled experiments that investigated their sensitivity to sample and pathway size, threshold-based filtering of differentially expressed genes, ability to detect target pathways, ability to exploit the topological information and the sensitivity to different pre-processing strategies. We also verified type I error rates and described the influence of overexpression of single genes, gene sets and topological motifs of various sizes on the detection of a pathway as differentially expressed. The results of our experiments demonstrate a wide variability of the tested methods. We provide a set of recommendations for an informed selection of the proper method for a given data analysis task.
- 650 _2
- $a databáze genetické $7 D030541
- 650 _2
- $a datové soubory jako téma $7 D066264
- 650 _2
- $a stanovení celkové genové exprese $x metody $7 D020869
- 650 _2
- $a vysoce účinné nukleotidové sekvenování $7 D059014
- 650 _2
- $a lidé $7 D006801
- 650 12
- $a metabolické sítě a dráhy $7 D053858
- 655 _2
- $a srovnávací studie $7 D003160
- 655 _2
- $a časopisecké články $7 D016428
- 655 _2
- $a práce podpořená grantem $7 D013485
- 700 1_
- $a Popovici, Vlad $u RECETOX, Faculty of Science, Masarykova Univerzita, Brno, Czech Republic.
- 700 1_
- $a Budinska, Eva $u RECETOX, Faculty of Science, Masarykova Univerzita, Brno, Czech Republic. Institute of Biostatistics and Analyses, Faculty of Medicine, Masarykova Univerzita, Brno, Czech Republic.
- 773 0_
- $w MED00180950 $t PloS one $x 1932-6203 $g Roč. 13, č. 1 (2018), s. e0191154
- 856 41
- $u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29370226 $y Pubmed
- 910 __
- $a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y a $z 0
- 990 __
- $a 20180404 $b ABA008
- 991 __
- $a 20180404141942 $b ABA008
- 999 __
- $a ok $b bmc $g 1287680 $s 1007007
- BAS __
- $a 3
- BAS __
- $a PreBMC
- BMC __
- $a 2018 $b 13 $c 1 $d e0191154 $e 20180125 $i 1932-6203 $m PLoS One $n PLoS One $x MED00180950
- LZP __
- $a Pubmed-20180404