↓ Skip to main content

Investigating the concordance of Gene Ontology terms reveals the intra- and inter-platform reproducibility of enrichment analysis

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Bioinformatics, April 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
36 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
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
Investigating the concordance of Gene Ontology terms reveals the intra- and inter-platform reproducibility of enrichment analysis
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, April 2013
DOI 10.1186/1471-2105-14-143
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lifang Zhang, Juan Zhang, Gang Yang, Di Wu, Lina Jiang, Zhining Wen, Menglong Li

Abstract

Reliability and Reproducibility of differentially expressed genes (DEGs) are essential for the biological interpretation of microarray data. The microarray quality control (MAQC) project launched by US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) elucidated that the lists of DEGs generated by intra- and inter-platform comparisons can reach a high level of concordance, which mainly depended on the statistical criteria used for ranking and selecting DEGs. Generally, it will produce reproducible lists of DEGs when combining fold change ranking with a non-stringent p-value cutoff. For further interpretation of the gene expression data, statistical methods of gene enrichment analysis provide powerful tools for associating the DEGs with prior biological knowledge, e.g. Gene Ontology (GO) terms and pathways, and are widely used in genome-wide research. Although the DEG lists generated from the same compared conditions proved to be reliable, the reproducible enrichment results are still crucial to the discovery of the underlying molecular mechanism differentiating the two conditions. Therefore, it is important to know whether the enrichment results are still reproducible, when using the lists of DEGs generated by different statistic criteria from inter-laboratory and cross-platform comparisons. In our study, we used the MAQC data sets for systematically accessing the intra- and inter-platform concordance of GO terms enriched by Gene Set Enrichment Analysis (GSEA) and LRpath.

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 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 6%
Netherlands 1 3%
France 1 3%
Argentina 1 3%
Unknown 31 86%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 36%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 22%
Student > Bachelor 4 11%
Other 2 6%
Student > Master 2 6%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 3 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 13 36%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 17%
Computer Science 5 14%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 5 14%
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 08 May 2013.
All research outputs
#18,338,033
of 22,709,015 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#6,292
of 7,259 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#144,756
of 192,649 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#116
of 123 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,709,015 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,259 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 5th percentile – i.e., 5% 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 192,649 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 123 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.