↓ Skip to main content

Detecting differentially expressed genes for syndromes by considering change in mean and dispersion simultaneously

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Bioinformatics, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
10 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
Detecting differentially expressed genes for syndromes by considering change in mean and dispersion simultaneously
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, September 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12859-018-2354-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chenchen Ma, Tieming Ji

Abstract

Using next-generation sequencing technology to measure gene expression, an empirically intriguing question concerns the identification of differentially expressed genes across treatment groups. Existing methods aim to identify genes whose mean expressions differ among treatment groups by assuming equal dispersion across all groups. For syndromes, however, various combinations of gene expression alterations can result in the same disease, leading to greater heteroscedasticity in the biological replicates in the disease group compared to the normal group. Traditional methods that only consider changes in the mean will fail to fully analyze gene expression in such a scenario. In addition, sequencing technology is relatively expensive; most labs can only afford a few replicates per treatment group, which poses further challenges to reliably estimating the mean and dispersion under each treatment condition. We designed an empirical Bayes method and a pooled permutation test to simultaneously consider the change in mean and dispersion across treatment groups. We further computed confidence intervals based on Bayes estimates to identify differentially expressed genes that are unique to each disease sample as well as those that are common across all disease samples. We illustrated our method by applying it to gene expression data from a large offspring syndrome experiment, which motivated this study. We compared our method to competing approaches through simulation studies that mimicked the real datasets to demonstrate the effectiveness of our proposed method. We will show that, compared to popular methods that only aim to find the difference in the mean, our method can capture greater variation in the disease group to effectively identify differentially expressed genes for syndromes.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 10 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 30%
Other 3 30%
Researcher 1 10%
Student > Bachelor 1 10%
Unknown 2 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 50%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 10%
Unknown 2 20%
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 11 October 2018.
All research outputs
#15,019,263
of 23,103,903 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#5,084
of 7,329 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#204,151
of 342,063 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#69
of 108 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,103,903 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,329 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 26th percentile – i.e., 26% 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 342,063 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 108 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.