↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of statistical methods for subnetwork detection in the integration of gene expression and protein interaction network

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Bioinformatics, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
30 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
73 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
Comparison of statistical methods for subnetwork detection in the integration of gene expression and protein interaction network
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, March 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12859-017-1567-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hao He, Dongdong Lin, Jigang Zhang, Yu-ping Wang, Hong-wen Deng

Abstract

With the advancement of high-throughput technologies and enrichment of popular public databases, more and more research focuses of bioinformatics research have been on computational integration of network and gene expression profiles for extracting context-dependent active subnetworks. Many methods for subnetwork searching have been developed. Scoring and searching algorithms present a range of computational considerations and implementations. The primary goal of present study is to comprehensively evaluate the performance of different subnetwork detection methods. Eleven popular methods were selected for comprehensive comparison. First, taking into account the dependence of genes given a protein-protein interaction (PPI) network, we simulated microarray gene expression data under case and control conditions. Then each method was applied to the simulated data for subnetwork identification. Second, a large microarray data set of prostate cancer was used to assess the practical performance of each method. Using both simulation studies and a real data application, we evaluated the performance of different methods in terms of recall and precision. jActiveModules, PinnacleZ and WMAXC performed well in identifying subnetwork with relative high precision and recall. BioNet performed very well only in precision. As none of methods outperformed other methods overall, users should choose an appropriate method based on the purposes of their studies.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 73 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Germany 1 1%
Unknown 71 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 29%
Student > Master 15 21%
Researcher 12 16%
Student > Bachelor 6 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 3%
Other 9 12%
Unknown 8 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 14 19%
Computer Science 14 19%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 8%
Engineering 3 4%
Other 7 10%
Unknown 17 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 22 March 2017.
All research outputs
#14,797,219
of 22,958,253 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#5,044
of 7,307 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#184,817
of 310,523 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#78
of 138 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,958,253 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,307 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 30th percentile – i.e., 30% 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 310,523 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 138 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.