The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Estimating mutual information using B-spline functions – an improved similarity measure for analysing gene expression data
Open accessAbstract
Background: The information theoretic concept of mutual information provides a general framework to evaluate dependencies between variables. In the context of the clustering of genes with similar patterns of expression it has been suggested as a general quantity of similarity to extend commonly used linear measures. Since mutual information is defined in terms of discrete variables, its application to continuous data requires the use of binning procedures, which can lead to significant numerical errors for datasets of small or moderate size. Results: In this work, we propose a method for the numerical estimation of mutual information from continuous data. We investigate the characteristic properties arising from the application of our algorithm and show that our approach outperforms commonly used algorithms: The significance, as a measure of the power of distinction from random correlation, is significantly increased. This concept is subsequently illustrated on two large-scale gene expression datasets and the results are compared to those obtained using other similarity measures. A C++ source code of our algorithm is available for non-commercial use from kloska@scienion.de upon request. Conclusion: The utilisation of mutual information as similarity measure enables the detection of non-linear correlations in gene expression datasets. Frequently applied linear correlation measures, which are often used on an ad-hoc basis without further justification, are thereby extended.
Overview
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
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Cluster analysis and display of genome-wide expression patterns
Eisen, M. B., Spellman, P. T., Brown, P. O., & Botstein, D. (1998) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.95.25.14863 · Cited by 16,184
Estimation of entropy and mutual information
Paninski, L. (2003) · Neural Computation · doi:10.1162/089976603321780272 · Cited by 1,442
Cited by
Faith, J. J., Hayete, B., Thaden, J. T., Mogno, I., Wierzbowski, J., Cottarel, G., Kasif, S., Collins, J. J., & Gardner, T. S. (2007) · PLoS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0050008 · Cited by 1,563
Equitability, mutual information, and the maximal information coefficient
Kinney, J. B., & Atwal, G. S. (2014) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1309933111 · Cited by 667
Comparison of co-expression measures: mutual information, correlation, and model based indices
Song, L., Langfelder, P., & Horvath, S. (2012) · BMC Bioinformatics · doi:10.1186/1471-2105-13-328 · Cited by 460
Review on statistical methods for gene network reconstruction using expression data
Wang, Y. X. R., & Huang, H. (2014) · Journal of Theoretical Biology · doi:10.1016/j.jtbi.2014.03.040 · Cited by 182
Comparative study of RNA-seq- and Microarray-derived coexpression networks in Arabidopsis thaliana
Giorgi, F. M., Del Fabbro, C., & Licausi, F. (2013) · Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btt053 · Cited by 103
“Received on September 10, 2012; revised on January 19, 2013; accepted on January 28, 2013”
Metadata
- Authors
- Daub, C. O., Steuer, R., Selbig, J., & Kloska, S.
- Venue
- BMC Bioinformatics
- Published
- 2004-08-31
- Volume
- 5
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 118-118
- ISSN
- 1471-2105 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1635484243
- Cited by
- 286
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 1.53
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.