↓ Skip to main content

Comparative evaluation of gene-set analysis methods

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Bioinformatics, November 2007
Altmetric Badge

Citations

dimensions_citation
85 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
117 Mendeley
citeulike
10 CiteULike
connotea
3 Connotea
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
Comparative evaluation of gene-set analysis methods
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, November 2007
DOI 10.1186/1471-2105-8-431
Pubmed ID
Authors

Qi Liu, Irina Dinu, Adeniyi J Adewale, John D Potter, Yutaka Yasui

Abstract

Multiple data-analytic methods have been proposed for evaluating gene-expression levels in specific biological pathways, assessing differential expression associated with a binary phenotype. Following Goeman and Bühlmann's recent review, we compared statistical performance of three methods, namely Global Test, ANCOVA Global Test, and SAM-GS, that test "self-contained null hypotheses" Via. subject sampling. The three methods were compared based on a simulation experiment and analyses of three real-world microarray datasets. In the simulation experiment, we found that the use of the asymptotic distribution in the two Global Tests leads to a statistical test with an incorrect size. Specifically, p-values calculated by the scaled chi2 distribution of Global Test and the asymptotic distribution of ANCOVA Global Test are too liberal, while the asymptotic distribution with a quadratic form of the Global Test results in p-values that are too conservative. The two Global Tests with permutation-based inference, however, gave a correct size. While the three methods showed similar power using permutation inference after a proper standardization of gene expression data, SAM-GS showed slightly higher power than the Global Tests. In the analysis of a real-world microarray dataset, the two Global Tests gave markedly different results, compared to SAM-GS, in identifying pathways whose gene expressions are associated with p53 mutation in cancer cell lines. A proper standardization of gene expression variances is necessary for the two Global Tests in order to produce biologically sensible results. After the standardization, the three methods gave very similar biologically-sensible results, with slightly higher statistical significance given by SAM-GS. The three methods gave similar patterns of results in the analysis of the other two microarray datasets. An appropriate standardization makes the performance of all three methods similar, given the use of permutation-based inference. SAM-GS tends to have slightly higher power in the lower alpha-level region (i.e. gene sets that are of the greatest interest). Global Test and ANCOVA Global Test have the important advantage of being able to analyze continuous and survival phenotypes and to adjust for covariates. A free Microsoft Excel Add-In to perform SAM-GS is available from http://www.ualberta.ca/~yyasui/homepage.html.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 117 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 6 5%
Sweden 2 2%
Germany 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Finland 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Russia 1 <1%
Other 3 3%
Unknown 99 85%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 43 37%
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 21%
Student > Master 17 15%
Professor 9 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 8 7%
Other 12 10%
Unknown 4 3%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 48 41%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 15 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 13 11%
Mathematics 10 9%
Computer Science 8 7%
Other 16 14%
Unknown 7 6%