Cited by 867Bioinformatics and Genomic NetworksGene expression and cancer classificationGene Regulatory Network Analysis

Eigengene networks for studying the relationships between co-expression modules

Open access
Langfelder, Peter, Horvath, Steve·2007·BMC Systems Biology

Abstract

BACKGROUND: There is evidence that genes and their protein products are organized into functional modules according to cellular processes and pathways. Gene co-expression networks have been used to describe the relationships between gene transcripts. Ample literature exists on how to detect biologically meaningful modules in networks but there is a need for methods that allow one to study the relationships between modules. RESULTS: We show that network methods can also be used to describe the relationships between co-expression modules and present the following methodology. First, we describe several methods for detecting modules that are shared by two or more networks (referred to as consensus modules). We represent the gene expression profiles of each module by an eigengene. Second, we propose a method for constructing an eigengene network, where the edges are undirected but maintain information on the sign of the co-expression information. Third, we propose methods for differential eigengene network analysis that allow one to assess the preservation of network properties across different data sets. We illustrate the value of eigengene networks in studying the relationships between consensus modules in human and chimpanzee brains; the relationships between consensus modules in brain, muscle, liver, and adipose mouse tissues; and the relationships between male-female mouse consensus modules and clinical traits. In some applications, we find that module eigengenes can be organized into higher level clusters which we refer to as meta-modules. CONCLUSION: Eigengene networks can be effective and biologically meaningful tools for studying the relationships between modules of a gene co-expression network. The proposed methods may reveal a higher order organization of the transcriptome. R software tutorials, the data, and supplementary material can be found at the following webpage: http://www.genetics.ucla.edu/labs/horvath/CoexpressionNetwork/EigengeneNetwork.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/1752-0509-1-54

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • The resulting modules from clustering often represent biological processes.

    “The resulting modules often represent biological processes [63, 64] and can be phenotype specific [65].”
  • Subsequently, networks were modeled based on co-expression across a series of perturbations with genes as nodes and correlations as edges.

    “Subsequently, networks were modeled based on co-expression across a series of perturbations with the genes encoding the transcripts corresponding to the nodes and the correlations to the edges [67–69].”

    From Multi-omics approaches to disease (2017) · cites this paper as [68]

  • The modified WGCNA used bootstrapping 100 times and a consensus network to ensure that a subset of samples does not drive the network structure.

    “Notably, we used a modified version of WGCNA that involves bootstrapping the underlying dataset 100 times and constructing 100 networks. The consensus of these networks (median edge strength across all bootstrapped networks) was then used as the final network39, ensuring that a subset of samples does not drive the network structure.”
  • A consensus analysis identifies modules that group together genes correlated in both data sets, with respect to both time point and genotype.

    “The rationale is that a consensus analysis identifies modules that group together genes correlated in both data sets, i.e., both with respect to time point as well as genotype.”

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Langfelder, P., & Horvath, S.
Affiliations
University of California, Los Angeles (US)
Corresponding author
Horvath, Steve
Venue
BMC Systems Biology
Published
2007-11-21
Volume
1
Issue
1
Pages
54-54
ISSN
1752-0509 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1964305071
Cited by
867
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 34 · 2025: 41 · 2024: 62 · 2023: 62 · 2022: 94 · 2021: 90 · 2020: 73 · 2019: 70 · 2018: 62 · 2017: 67 · 2016: 58 · 2015: 34 · 2014: 21 · 2013: 28 · 2012: 23
FWCI
3.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMC Systems Biology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (U19AI063603)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Bioinformatics and Genomic Networks
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gene expression and cancer classification
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gene Regulatory Network Analysis
Keywords
gene co-expression network, consensus modules, differential network analysis, sex differences in gene expression, clinical traits, mouse tissues
MeSH terms
Animals, Brain, Pan troglodytes, Computer Simulation, Female, Humans, Male, Models, Genetic, Species Specificity, Tissue Distribution, Gene Expression Profiling, Databases, Genetic, Systems Biology, Mice

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