Cited by 134Bioinformatics and Genomic NetworksGene expression and cancer classificationBiomedical Text Mining and Ontologies

Prediction of Human Disease Genes by Human-Mouse Conserved Coexpression Analysis

Open access
Ala, Ugo, Piro, Rosario Michael, Grassi, Elena, Damasco, Christian, Silengo, Lorenzo, Oti, Martin, Provero, Paolo, Di Cunto, Ferdinando·2008·PLoS Computational Biology

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Even in the post-genomic era, the identification of candidate genes within loci associated with human genetic diseases is a very demanding task, because the critical region may typically contain hundreds of positional candidates. Since genes implicated in similar phenotypes tend to share very similar expression profiles, high throughput gene expression data may represent a very important resource to identify the best candidates for sequencing. However, so far, gene coexpression has not been used very successfully to prioritize positional candidates. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We show that it is possible to reliably identify disease-relevant relationships among genes from massive microarray datasets by concentrating only on genes sharing similar expression profiles in both human and mouse. Moreover, we show systematically that the integration of human-mouse conserved coexpression with a phenotype similarity map allows the efficient identification of disease genes in large genomic regions. Finally, using this approach on 850 OMIM loci characterized by an unknown molecular basis, we propose high-probability candidates for 81 genetic diseases. CONCLUSION: Our results demonstrate that conserved coexpression, even at the human-mouse phylogenetic distance, represents a very strong criterion to predict disease-relevant relationships among human genes.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000043

Cites

50 of 50 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?

  • GBA approaches are widely used to identify new potential disease genes if a substantial proportion of the genes within a module are associated with a particular disease.

    “GBA approaches are also widely used to identify new potential disease genes if a substantial proportion of the genes within a module are associated with a particular disease [26, 121–126] (Figure 1).”

    From Gene co-expression analysis for functional classification and gene–disease predictions (2017) · cites this paper as [26]

    The ‘Identification of Candidate Genes in Disease Loci’ section describes using coexpression clusters containing at least two genes known to cause similar phenotypes to identify candidate disease genes. It does not require a substantial proportion of a module’s genes to be associated with a particular disease; it also restricts candidates to genes in the mapped disease locus. No page number is available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

1 of the 51 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ala, U., Piro, R. M., Grassi, E., Damasco, C., Silengo, L., Oti, M., Provero, P., & Di Cunto, F.
Affiliations
  • University of Turin (IT)
  • Radboud University Medical Center (NL)
Corresponding author
Provero, Paolo
Venue
PLoS Computational Biology
Published
2008-03-28
Volume
4
Issue
3
Pages
e1000043
ISSN
  • 1553-734X (ISSN-L)
  • 1553-7358
OpenAlex
W2059682917
Cited by
134
References
51
Citations by year
2024: 6 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 16 · 2012: 12
FWCI
6.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS Computational Biology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Institutional Research Information System University of Turin (University of Turin) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Regione Piemonte
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 › Biomedical Text Mining and Ontologies
Keywords
disease gene prediction, gene co-expression, positional candidate genes, phenotype similarity, gene expression profiles, microarray data, candidate gene prioritization
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Animals, Chromosome Mapping, Diagnosis, Computer-Assisted, Humans, Biomarkers, Conserved Sequence, Genetic Predisposition to Disease, Proteome, Gene Expression Profiling, Genetic Diseases, Inborn, 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