Comparing Pearson, Spearman and Hoeffding’s D measure for gene expression association analysis
Abstract
DNA microarrays have become a powerful tool to describe gene expression profiles associated with different cellular states, various phenotypes and responses to drugs and other extra- or intra-cellular perturbations. In order to cluster co-expressed genes and/or to construct regulatory networks, definition of distance or similarity between measured gene expression data is usually required, the most common choices being Pearson's and Spearman's correlations. Here, we evaluate these two methods and also compare them with a third one, namely Hoeffding's D measure, which is used to infer nonlinear and non-monotonic associations, i.e. independence in a general sense. By comparing three different variable association approaches, namely Pearson's correlation, Spearman's correlation and Hoeffding's D measure, we aimed at assessing the most approppriate one for each purpose. Using simulations, we demonstrate that the Hoeffding's D measure outperforms Pearson's and Spearman's approaches in identifying nonlinear associations. Our results demonstrate that Hoeffding's D measure is less sensitive to outliers and is a more powerful tool to identify nonlinear and non-monotonic associations. We have also applied Hoeffding's D measure in order to identify new putative genes associated with tp53. Therefore, we propose the Hoeffding's D measure to identify nonlinear associations between gene expression profiles.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
To avoid artificial skewing by outlying data points, average correlation was calculated from 24,102 overlapping windows of 1000 genes sorted by increasing whole embryo expression.
“Because correlation values can be artificially skewed by outlying data points [49], we calculated the average correlation from 24,102 overlapping windows of 1000 genes, sorted by increasing whole embryo expression (Figure S6).”
Cites
The RB and p53 pathways in cancer
Sherr, C. J., & McCormick, F. (2002) · Cancer Cell · doi:10.1016/s1535-6108(02)00102-2 · Cited by 1,690 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Higdon, C. W., Mitra, R. D., & Johnson, S. L. (2013) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0067801 · Cited by 125 · see citing works
- Authors
- FUJITA, A., SATO, J. R., DEMASI, M. A. A., SOGAYAR, M. C., FERREIRA, C. E., & MIYANO, S.
- Affiliations
- The University of Tokyo (JP)
- Universidade Federal do ABC (BR)
- Universidade de São Paulo (BR)
- ORCID
- Venue
- Journal of Bioinformatics and Computational Biology
- Publisher
- World Scientific Pub Co Pte Ltd
- Published
- 2009-08
- Volume
- 07
- Issue
- 04
- Pages
- 663-684
- ISSN
- 0219-7200 (ISSN-L)
- 1757-6334
- OpenAlex
- W2085259708
- Cited by
- 64
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 1.21
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Bioinformatics and Computational Biology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gene expression and cancer classification
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Bioinformatics and Genomic Networks
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Multidisciplinary Science and Engineering Research
- Keywords
- Pearson correlation, Spearman correlation, nonlinear relationship, DNA microarrays, regulatory networks, outlier sensitivity, TP53, gene expression profiles
- MeSH terms
- Algorithms, Computer Simulation, Models, Biological, Signal Transduction, Cluster Analysis, Proteome, Gene Expression Profiling
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