Cargando…
A Biological Evaluation of Six Gene Set Analysis Methods for Identification of Differentially Expressed Pathways in Microarray Data
Gene-set analysis of microarray data evaluates biological pathways, or gene sets, for their differential expression by a phenotype of interest. In contrast to the analysis of individual genes, gene-set analysis utilizes existing biological knowledge of genes and their pathways in assessing different...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Libertas Academica
2008
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2623289/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19259416 |
_version_ | 1782163421479829504 |
---|---|
author | Dinu, Irina Liu, Qi Potter, John D. Adewale, Adeniyi J. Jhangri, Gian S. Mueller, Thomas Einecke, Gunilla Famulsky, Konrad Halloran, Philip Yasui, Yutaka |
author_facet | Dinu, Irina Liu, Qi Potter, John D. Adewale, Adeniyi J. Jhangri, Gian S. Mueller, Thomas Einecke, Gunilla Famulsky, Konrad Halloran, Philip Yasui, Yutaka |
author_sort | Dinu, Irina |
collection | PubMed |
description | Gene-set analysis of microarray data evaluates biological pathways, or gene sets, for their differential expression by a phenotype of interest. In contrast to the analysis of individual genes, gene-set analysis utilizes existing biological knowledge of genes and their pathways in assessing differential expression. This paper evaluates the biological performance of five gene-set analysis methods testing “self-contained null hypotheses” via subject sampling, along with the most popular gene-set analysis method, Gene Set Enrichment Analysis (GSEA). We use three real microarray analyses in which differentially expressed gene sets are predictable biologically from the phenotype. Two types of gene sets are considered for this empirical evaluation: one type contains “truly positive” sets that should be identified as differentially expressed; and the other type contains “truly negative” sets that should not be identified as differentially expressed. Our evaluation suggests advantages of SAM-GS, Global, and ANCOVA Global methods over GSEA and the other two methods. |
format | Text |
id | pubmed-2623289 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2008 |
publisher | Libertas Academica |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-26232892009-02-24 A Biological Evaluation of Six Gene Set Analysis Methods for Identification of Differentially Expressed Pathways in Microarray Data Dinu, Irina Liu, Qi Potter, John D. Adewale, Adeniyi J. Jhangri, Gian S. Mueller, Thomas Einecke, Gunilla Famulsky, Konrad Halloran, Philip Yasui, Yutaka Cancer Inform Original Article Gene-set analysis of microarray data evaluates biological pathways, or gene sets, for their differential expression by a phenotype of interest. In contrast to the analysis of individual genes, gene-set analysis utilizes existing biological knowledge of genes and their pathways in assessing differential expression. This paper evaluates the biological performance of five gene-set analysis methods testing “self-contained null hypotheses” via subject sampling, along with the most popular gene-set analysis method, Gene Set Enrichment Analysis (GSEA). We use three real microarray analyses in which differentially expressed gene sets are predictable biologically from the phenotype. Two types of gene sets are considered for this empirical evaluation: one type contains “truly positive” sets that should be identified as differentially expressed; and the other type contains “truly negative” sets that should not be identified as differentially expressed. Our evaluation suggests advantages of SAM-GS, Global, and ANCOVA Global methods over GSEA and the other two methods. Libertas Academica 2008-06-20 /pmc/articles/PMC2623289/ /pubmed/19259416 Text en © 2008 by the authors http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0 This article is an open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/). |
spellingShingle | Original Article Dinu, Irina Liu, Qi Potter, John D. Adewale, Adeniyi J. Jhangri, Gian S. Mueller, Thomas Einecke, Gunilla Famulsky, Konrad Halloran, Philip Yasui, Yutaka A Biological Evaluation of Six Gene Set Analysis Methods for Identification of Differentially Expressed Pathways in Microarray Data |
title | A Biological Evaluation of Six Gene Set Analysis Methods for Identification of Differentially Expressed Pathways in Microarray Data |
title_full | A Biological Evaluation of Six Gene Set Analysis Methods for Identification of Differentially Expressed Pathways in Microarray Data |
title_fullStr | A Biological Evaluation of Six Gene Set Analysis Methods for Identification of Differentially Expressed Pathways in Microarray Data |
title_full_unstemmed | A Biological Evaluation of Six Gene Set Analysis Methods for Identification of Differentially Expressed Pathways in Microarray Data |
title_short | A Biological Evaluation of Six Gene Set Analysis Methods for Identification of Differentially Expressed Pathways in Microarray Data |
title_sort | biological evaluation of six gene set analysis methods for identification of differentially expressed pathways in microarray data |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2623289/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19259416 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT dinuirina abiologicalevaluationofsixgenesetanalysismethodsforidentificationofdifferentiallyexpressedpathwaysinmicroarraydata AT liuqi abiologicalevaluationofsixgenesetanalysismethodsforidentificationofdifferentiallyexpressedpathwaysinmicroarraydata AT potterjohnd abiologicalevaluationofsixgenesetanalysismethodsforidentificationofdifferentiallyexpressedpathwaysinmicroarraydata AT adewaleadeniyij abiologicalevaluationofsixgenesetanalysismethodsforidentificationofdifferentiallyexpressedpathwaysinmicroarraydata AT jhangrigians abiologicalevaluationofsixgenesetanalysismethodsforidentificationofdifferentiallyexpressedpathwaysinmicroarraydata AT muellerthomas abiologicalevaluationofsixgenesetanalysismethodsforidentificationofdifferentiallyexpressedpathwaysinmicroarraydata AT eineckegunilla abiologicalevaluationofsixgenesetanalysismethodsforidentificationofdifferentiallyexpressedpathwaysinmicroarraydata AT famulskykonrad abiologicalevaluationofsixgenesetanalysismethodsforidentificationofdifferentiallyexpressedpathwaysinmicroarraydata AT halloranphilip abiologicalevaluationofsixgenesetanalysismethodsforidentificationofdifferentiallyexpressedpathwaysinmicroarraydata AT yasuiyutaka abiologicalevaluationofsixgenesetanalysismethodsforidentificationofdifferentiallyexpressedpathwaysinmicroarraydata AT dinuirina biologicalevaluationofsixgenesetanalysismethodsforidentificationofdifferentiallyexpressedpathwaysinmicroarraydata AT liuqi biologicalevaluationofsixgenesetanalysismethodsforidentificationofdifferentiallyexpressedpathwaysinmicroarraydata AT potterjohnd biologicalevaluationofsixgenesetanalysismethodsforidentificationofdifferentiallyexpressedpathwaysinmicroarraydata AT adewaleadeniyij biologicalevaluationofsixgenesetanalysismethodsforidentificationofdifferentiallyexpressedpathwaysinmicroarraydata AT jhangrigians biologicalevaluationofsixgenesetanalysismethodsforidentificationofdifferentiallyexpressedpathwaysinmicroarraydata AT muellerthomas biologicalevaluationofsixgenesetanalysismethodsforidentificationofdifferentiallyexpressedpathwaysinmicroarraydata AT eineckegunilla biologicalevaluationofsixgenesetanalysismethodsforidentificationofdifferentiallyexpressedpathwaysinmicroarraydata AT famulskykonrad biologicalevaluationofsixgenesetanalysismethodsforidentificationofdifferentiallyexpressedpathwaysinmicroarraydata AT halloranphilip biologicalevaluationofsixgenesetanalysismethodsforidentificationofdifferentiallyexpressedpathwaysinmicroarraydata AT yasuiyutaka biologicalevaluationofsixgenesetanalysismethodsforidentificationofdifferentiallyexpressedpathwaysinmicroarraydata |