↓ Skip to main content

Unsupervised gene set testing based on random matrix theory

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Bioinformatics, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
24 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
Unsupervised gene set testing based on random matrix theory
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, November 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12859-016-1299-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

H. Robert Frost, Christopher I. Amos

Abstract

Gene set testing, or pathway analysis, is a bioinformatics technique that performs statistical testing on biologically meaningful sets of genomic variables. Although originally developed for supervised analyses, i.e., to test the association between gene sets and an outcome variable, gene set testing also has important unsupervised applications, e.g., p-value weighting. For unsupervised testing, however, few effective gene set testing methods are available with support especially poor for several biologically relevant use cases. In this paper, we describe two new unsupervised gene set testing methods based on random matrix theory, the Marc̆enko-Pastur Distribution Test (MPDT) and the Tracy-Widom Test (TWT), that support both self-contained and competitive null hypotheses. For the self-contained case, we contrast our proposed tests with the classic multivariate test based on a modified likelihood ratio criterion. For the competitive case, we compare the new tests against a competitive version of the classic test and our recently developed Spectral Gene Set Enrichment (SGSE) method. Evaluation of the TWT and MPDT methods is based on both simulation studies and a weighted p-value analysis of two real gene expression data sets using gene sets drawn from MSigDB collections. The MPDT and TWT methods are novel and effective tools for unsupervised gene set analysis with superior statistical performance relative to existing techniques and the ability to generate biologically important results on real genomic data sets.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Denmark 1 4%
France 1 4%
Unknown 22 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 42%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 13%
Student > Master 3 13%
Professor 2 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 8%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 2 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 38%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 21%
Mathematics 2 8%
Computer Science 2 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 4%
Other 3 13%
Unknown 2 8%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 27 November 2016.
All research outputs
#20,355,479
of 22,903,988 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#6,879
of 7,305 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#268,881
of 311,293 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#109
of 122 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,903,988 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,305 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 311,293 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 122 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.