Cargando…

When Is Hub Gene Selection Better than Standard Meta-Analysis?

Since hub nodes have been found to play important roles in many networks, highly connected hub genes are expected to play an important role in biology as well. However, the empirical evidence remains ambiguous. An open question is whether (or when) hub gene selection leads to more meaningful gene li...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Langfelder, Peter, Mischel, Paul S., Horvath, Steve
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3629234/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23613865
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0061505
_version_ 1782266550199255040
author Langfelder, Peter
Mischel, Paul S.
Horvath, Steve
author_facet Langfelder, Peter
Mischel, Paul S.
Horvath, Steve
author_sort Langfelder, Peter
collection PubMed
description Since hub nodes have been found to play important roles in many networks, highly connected hub genes are expected to play an important role in biology as well. However, the empirical evidence remains ambiguous. An open question is whether (or when) hub gene selection leads to more meaningful gene lists than a standard statistical analysis based on significance testing when analyzing genomic data sets (e.g., gene expression or DNA methylation data). Here we address this question for the special case when multiple genomic data sets are available. This is of great practical importance since for many research questions multiple data sets are publicly available. In this case, the data analyst can decide between a standard statistical approach (e.g., based on meta-analysis) and a co-expression network analysis approach that selects intramodular hubs in consensus modules. We assess the performance of these two types of approaches according to two criteria. The first criterion evaluates the biological insights gained and is relevant in basic research. The second criterion evaluates the validation success (reproducibility) in independent data sets and often applies in clinical diagnostic or prognostic applications. We compare meta-analysis with consensus network analysis based on weighted correlation network analysis (WGCNA) in three comprehensive and unbiased empirical studies: (1) Finding genes predictive of lung cancer survival, (2) finding methylation markers related to age, and (3) finding mouse genes related to total cholesterol. The results demonstrate that intramodular hub gene status with respect to consensus modules is more useful than a meta-analysis p-value when identifying biologically meaningful gene lists (reflecting criterion 1). However, standard meta-analysis methods perform as good as (if not better than) a consensus network approach in terms of validation success (criterion 2). The article also reports a comparison of meta-analysis techniques applied to gene expression data and presents novel R functions for carrying out consensus network analysis, network based screening, and meta analysis.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3629234
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-36292342013-04-23 When Is Hub Gene Selection Better than Standard Meta-Analysis? Langfelder, Peter Mischel, Paul S. Horvath, Steve PLoS One Research Article Since hub nodes have been found to play important roles in many networks, highly connected hub genes are expected to play an important role in biology as well. However, the empirical evidence remains ambiguous. An open question is whether (or when) hub gene selection leads to more meaningful gene lists than a standard statistical analysis based on significance testing when analyzing genomic data sets (e.g., gene expression or DNA methylation data). Here we address this question for the special case when multiple genomic data sets are available. This is of great practical importance since for many research questions multiple data sets are publicly available. In this case, the data analyst can decide between a standard statistical approach (e.g., based on meta-analysis) and a co-expression network analysis approach that selects intramodular hubs in consensus modules. We assess the performance of these two types of approaches according to two criteria. The first criterion evaluates the biological insights gained and is relevant in basic research. The second criterion evaluates the validation success (reproducibility) in independent data sets and often applies in clinical diagnostic or prognostic applications. We compare meta-analysis with consensus network analysis based on weighted correlation network analysis (WGCNA) in three comprehensive and unbiased empirical studies: (1) Finding genes predictive of lung cancer survival, (2) finding methylation markers related to age, and (3) finding mouse genes related to total cholesterol. The results demonstrate that intramodular hub gene status with respect to consensus modules is more useful than a meta-analysis p-value when identifying biologically meaningful gene lists (reflecting criterion 1). However, standard meta-analysis methods perform as good as (if not better than) a consensus network approach in terms of validation success (criterion 2). The article also reports a comparison of meta-analysis techniques applied to gene expression data and presents novel R functions for carrying out consensus network analysis, network based screening, and meta analysis. Public Library of Science 2013-04-17 /pmc/articles/PMC3629234/ /pubmed/23613865 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0061505 Text en © 2013 Langfelder et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are properly credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Langfelder, Peter
Mischel, Paul S.
Horvath, Steve
When Is Hub Gene Selection Better than Standard Meta-Analysis?
title When Is Hub Gene Selection Better than Standard Meta-Analysis?
title_full When Is Hub Gene Selection Better than Standard Meta-Analysis?
title_fullStr When Is Hub Gene Selection Better than Standard Meta-Analysis?
title_full_unstemmed When Is Hub Gene Selection Better than Standard Meta-Analysis?
title_short When Is Hub Gene Selection Better than Standard Meta-Analysis?
title_sort when is hub gene selection better than standard meta-analysis?
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3629234/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23613865
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0061505
work_keys_str_mv AT langfelderpeter whenishubgeneselectionbetterthanstandardmetaanalysis
AT mischelpauls whenishubgeneselectionbetterthanstandardmetaanalysis
AT horvathsteve whenishubgeneselectionbetterthanstandardmetaanalysis