↓ Skip to main content

Consistency of biological networks inferred from microarray and sequencing data

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

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
44 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
Consistency of biological networks inferred from microarray and sequencing data
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, June 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12859-016-1136-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Veronica Vinciotti, Ernst C. Wit, Rick Jansen, Eco J. C. N. de Geus, Brenda W. J. H. Penninx, Dorret I. Boomsma, Peter A. C. ’t Hoen

Abstract

Sparse Gaussian graphical models are popular for inferring biological networks, such as gene regulatory networks. In this paper, we investigate the consistency of these models across different data platforms, such as microarray and next generation sequencing, on the basis of a rich dataset containing samples that are profiled under both techniques as well as a large set of independent samples. Our analysis shows that individual node variances can have a remarkable effect on the connectivity of the resulting network. Their inconsistency across platforms and the fact that the variability level of a node may not be linked to its regulatory role mean that, failing to scale the data prior to the network analysis, leads to networks that are not reproducible across different platforms and that may be misleading. Moreover, we show how the reproducibility of networks across different platforms is significantly higher if networks are summarised in terms of enrichment amongst functional groups of interest, such as pathways, rather than at the level of individual edges. Careful pre-processing of transcriptional data and summaries of networks beyond individual edges can improve the consistency of network inference across platforms. However, caution is needed at this stage in the (over)interpretation of gene regulatory networks inferred from biological data.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
China 1 2%
Brazil 1 2%
Unknown 42 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 32%
Researcher 10 23%
Student > Bachelor 4 9%
Student > Master 3 7%
Student > Postgraduate 3 7%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 7 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 18 41%
Computer Science 8 18%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 5%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 9 20%
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 05 July 2016.
All research outputs
#22,907,907
of 25,543,275 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#7,285
of 7,717 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#324,817
of 369,008 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#82
of 89 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,543,275 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 7,717 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. 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 369,008 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 89 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.