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...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
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 |