↓ Skip to main content

Pathway size matters: the influence of pathway granularity on over-representation (enrichment analysis) statistics

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Genomics, March 2021
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (54th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
163 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
48 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Pathway size matters: the influence of pathway granularity on over-representation (enrichment analysis) statistics
Published in
BMC Genomics, March 2021
DOI 10.1186/s12864-021-07502-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Peter D. Karp, Peter E. Midford, Ron Caspi, Arkady Khodursky

Abstract

Enrichment or over-representation analysis is a common method used in bioinformatics studies of transcriptomics, metabolomics, and microbiome datasets. The key idea behind enrichment analysis is: given a set of significantly expressed genes (or metabolites), use that set to infer a smaller set of perturbed biological pathways or processes, in which those genes (or metabolites) play a role. Enrichment computations rely on collections of defined biological pathways and/or processes, which are usually drawn from pathway databases. Although practitioners of enrichment analysis take great care to employ statistical corrections (e.g., for multiple testing), they appear unaware that enrichment results are quite sensitive to the pathway definitions that the calculation uses. We show that alternative pathway definitions can alter enrichment p-values by up to nine orders of magnitude, whereas statistical corrections typically alter enrichment p-values by only two orders of magnitude. We present multiple examples where the smaller pathway definitions used in the EcoCyc database produces stronger enrichment p-values than the much larger pathway definitions used in the KEGG database; we demonstrate that to attain a given enrichment p-value, KEGG-based enrichment analyses require 1.3-2.0 times as many significantly expressed genes as does EcoCyc-based enrichment analyses. The large pathways in KEGG are problematic for another reason: they blur together multiple (as many as 21) biological processes. When such a KEGG pathway receives a high enrichment p-value, which of its component processes is perturbed is unclear, and thus the biological conclusions drawn from enrichment of large pathways are also in question. The choice of pathway database used in enrichment analyses can have a much stronger effect on the enrichment results than the statistical corrections used in these analyses.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 48 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 48 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 25%
Researcher 6 13%
Student > Bachelor 6 13%
Student > Master 5 10%
Unspecified 2 4%
Other 5 10%
Unknown 12 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 15 31%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 6%
Unspecified 2 4%
Computer Science 2 4%
Other 8 17%
Unknown 15 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 March 2021.
All research outputs
#13,243,031
of 23,344,526 outputs
Outputs from BMC Genomics
#4,653
of 10,745 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#191,303
of 426,569 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Genomics
#73
of 171 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,344,526 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,745 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 426,569 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 171 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its contemporaries.