EGAD: ultra-fast functional analysis of gene networks
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
Abstract
Summary: Evaluating gene networks with respect to known biology is a common task but often a computationally costly one. Many computational experiments are difficult to apply exhaustively in network analysis due to run-times. To permit high-throughput analysis of gene networks, we have implemented a set of very efficient tools to calculate functional properties in networks based on guilt-by-association methods. ( xtending ' uilt-by- ssociation' by egree) allows gene networks to be evaluated with respect to hundreds or thousands of gene sets. The methods predict novel members of gene groups, assess how well a gene network groups known sets of genes, and determines the degree to which generic predictions drive performance. By allowing fast evaluations, whether of random sets or real functional ones, provides the user with an assessment of performance which can easily be used in controlled evaluations across many parameters. Availability and Implementation: The software package is freely available at https://github.com/sarbal/EGAD and implemented for use in R and Matlab. The package is also freely available under the LGPL license from the Bioconductor web site ( http://bioconductor.org ). Contact: JGillis@cshl.edu. Supplementary information: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Connected genes in biological networks are potentially involved in the same processes.
“Connected genes in biological networks are potentially involved in the same processes, and EGAD evaluates this network property given a set of gene-process annotations.”
From hdWGCNA identifies co-expression networks in high-dimensional transcriptomics data (2023) · cites this paper as [23]
EGAD evaluates the network property of functional coherence given a set of gene-process annotations.
“Connected genes in biological networks are potentially involved in the same processes, and EGAD evaluates this network property given a set of gene-process annotations.”
From hdWGCNA identifies co-expression networks in high-dimensional transcriptomics data (2023) · cites this paper as [23]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
SEQC/MAQC-III Consortium (2014) · Nature Biotechnology · doi:10.1038/nbt.2957 · Cited by 983 · see citing works
Ideker, T., & Sharan, R. (2008) · Genome Research · doi:10.1101/gr.071852.107 · Cited by 817 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
hdWGCNA identifies co-expression networks in high-dimensional transcriptomics data
Morabito, S., Reese, F., Rahimzadeh, N., Miyoshi, E., & Swarup, V. (2023) · Cell Reports Methods · doi:10.1016/j.crmeth.2023.100498 · Cited by 773 · see citing works
Crow, M., Paul, A., Ballouz, S., Huang, Z. J., & Gillis, J. (2018) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-018-03282-0 · Cited by 365 · see citing works
Self-citationPredictability of human differential gene expression
Crow, M., Lim, N., Ballouz, S., Pavlidis, P., & Gillis, J. (2019) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1802973116 · Cited by 117 · see citing works
Self-citationO’Meara, T. R., O’Meara, M. J., Polvi, E. J., Pourhaghighi, M. R., Liston, S. D., Lin, Z.-Y., Veri, A. O., Emili, A., Gingras, A.-C., & Cowen, L. E. (2019) · PLoS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.3000358 · Cited by 49 · see citing works
- Authors
- Ballouz, S., Weber, M., Pavlidis, P., & Gillis, J.
- Affiliations
- Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory (US)
- Leipzig University (DE)
- University of British Columbia (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Gillis, Jesse
- Venue
- Bioinformatics
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2016-11-28
- Volume
- 33
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 612-614
- ISSN
- 1367-4803 (ISSN-L)
- 1367-4811
- PMC
- PMC6041978
- OpenAlex
- W2952588534
- Cited by
- 74
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 2
- FWCI
- 3.81
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Bioinformatics (publishedVersion)
- bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Institutional Repository (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion)
- Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Institutional Repository (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health (GM076990, MH111099)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Bioinformatics and Genomic Networks
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gene Regulatory Network Analysis
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Phylogenetic Studies
- Keywords
- gene networks, guilt by association, gene set enrichment analysis, network evaluation, performance benchmarking
- MeSH terms
- Animals, Humans, Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Software, Computational Biology, Gene Regulatory Networks
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review