↓ Skip to main content

Comparative evaluation of gene set analysis approaches for RNA-Seq data

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Bioinformatics, December 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
20 X users
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
149 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
Comparative evaluation of gene set analysis approaches for RNA-Seq data
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, December 2014
DOI 10.1186/s12859-014-0397-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yasir Rahmatallah, Frank Emmert-Streib, Galina Glazko

Abstract

BackgroundOver the last few years transcriptome sequencing (RNA-Seq) has almost completely taken over microarrays for high-throughput studies of gene expression. Currently, the most popular use of RNA-Seq is to identify genes which are differentially expressed between two or more conditions. Despite the importance of Gene Set Analysis (GSA) in the interpretation of the results from RNA-Seq experiments, the limitations of GSA methods developed for microarrays in the context of RNA-Seq data are not well understood.ResultsWe provide a thorough evaluation of popular multivariate and gene-level self-contained GSA approaches on simulated and real RNA-Seq data. The multivariate approach employs multivariate non-parametric tests combined with popular normalizations for RNA-Seq data. The gene-level approach utilizes univariate tests designed for the analysis of RNA-Seq data to find gene-specific P-values and combines them into a pathway P-value using classical statistical techniques. Our results demonstrate that the Type I error rate and the power of multivariate tests depend only on the test statistics and are insensitive to the different normalizations. In general standard multivariate GSA tests detect pathways that do not have any bias in terms of pathways size, percentage of differentially expressed genes, or average gene length in a pathway. In contrast the Type I error rate and the power of gene-level GSA tests are heavily affected by the methods for combining P-values, and all aforementioned biases are present in detected pathways.ConclusionsOur result emphasizes the importance of using self-contained non-parametric multivariate tests for detecting differentially expressed pathways for RNA-Seq data and warns against applying gene-level GSA tests, especially because of their high level of Type I error rates for both, simulated and real data.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 20 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 149 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 6 4%
Netherlands 2 1%
Japan 2 1%
France 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Malaysia 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Other 3 2%
Unknown 130 87%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 46 31%
Student > Ph. D. Student 32 21%
Student > Master 18 12%
Student > Postgraduate 9 6%
Student > Bachelor 7 5%
Other 24 16%
Unknown 13 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 67 45%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 22 15%
Computer Science 15 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 7%
Neuroscience 4 3%
Other 11 7%
Unknown 19 13%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 01 January 2015.
All research outputs
#1,880,922
of 23,767,404 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#435
of 7,434 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26,772
of 364,012 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#12
of 147 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,767,404 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,434 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 364,012 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 147 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.