Cited by 64Gene expression and cancer classificationBioinformatics and Genomic NetworksMultidisciplinary Science and Engineering Research

Comparing Pearson, Spearman and Hoeffding’s D measure for gene expression association analysis

FUJITA, ANDRÉ, SATO, JOÃO RICARDO, DEMASI, MARCOS ANGELO ALMEIDA, SOGAYAR, MARI CLEIDE, FERREIRA, CARLOS EDUARDO, MIYANO, SATORU·2009·Journal of Bioinformatics and Computational Biology

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

Crossref · 10.1142/s0219720009004230

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

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)
Venue
Journal of Bioinformatics and Computational Biology
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