Cited by 186Gene Regulatory Network AnalysisBioinformatics and Genomic NetworksMicrobial Metabolic Engineering and Bioproduction

Comparing Statistical Methods for Constructing Large Scale Gene Networks

Open access
Allen, Jeffrey D., Xie, Yang, Chen, Min, Girard, Luc, Xiao, Guanghua·2012·PLoS ONE

Abstract

The gene regulatory network (GRN) reveals the regulatory relationships among genes and can provide a systematic understanding of molecular mechanisms underlying biological processes. The importance of computer simulations in understanding cellular processes is now widely accepted; a variety of algorithms have been developed to study these biological networks. The goal of this study is to provide a comprehensive evaluation and a practical guide to aid in choosing statistical methods for constructing large scale GRNs. Using both simulation studies and a real application in E. coli data, we compare different methods in terms of sensitivity and specificity in identifying the true connections and the hub genes, the ease of use, and computational speed. Our results show that these algorithms performed reasonably well, and each method has its own advantages: (1) GeneNet, WGCNA (Weighted Correlation Network Analysis), and ARACNE (Algorithm for the Reconstruction of Accurate Cellular Networks) performed well in constructing the global network structure; (2) GeneNet and SPACE (Sparse PArtial Correlation Estimation) performed well in identifying a few connections with high specificity.

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.pone.0029348

Cites

46 of 46 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?

  • WGCNA and ARACNE perform best at defining the network structure of Escherichia coli.

    “A comparison between these tools and others, including WGCNA, showed that WGCNA and ARACNE perform best at defining the network structure of Escherichia coli [130], for which a well-defined regulatory network was used as a gold standard [131].”
  • Each of the methods detects specific module changes by design, but they can also detect modular changes that they were not specifically designed for and may outperform other tools in the identification of these changes.

    “Each of the methods detects specific module changes by design, but they can also detect modular changes that they were not specifically designed for and may outperform other tools in the identification of these changes [130].”

    From Gene co-expression analysis for functional classification and gene–disease predictions (2017) · cites this paper as [130]

    The Results (Hub Gene Detection) and Discussion compare methods for detecting hub genes and constructing gene networks, but do not evaluate changes in modules. A search for module changes and network rewiring found only a Discussion note that WGCNA can detect modules or sub-networks; it does not address whether methods detect changes they were not designed for or outperform other tools at doing so. No page numbers were available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • At currently available sample sizes, networks are most reproducible at module level, then hub gene level, and least at precise gene connectivity rankings or module memberships.

    “At currently available sample sizes, networks are most reproducible at a module level35,38,39, then at the hub gene level41,223 and, last, at the level of precise gene connectivity rankings or precise module memberships of genes40,49.”
  • Weighted networks constructed with topological overlap, such as WGCNA, have similar sensitivity and specificity for detecting true network structure for monotonic relationships as networks constructed with nonlinear association measures such as mutual information, such as ARACNE.

    “weighted networks constructed with the topological overlap of correlation (for example, by weighted gene co-expression network analysis (WGCNA)42,44) have similar sensitivity and specificity for detecting true network structure for experiments involving monotonic relationships as do networks constructed with nonlinear association measures such as mutual information (for example, by the Algorithm”
  • Network analyses of AD brain tissue demonstrate the most reproducibility at the module level, followed by the hub protein level, and then at the level of precise protein connectivity rankings and module protein membership.

    “Network analyses of AD brain tissue demonstrate the most reproducibility at the module level, followed by the hub protein level, and then finally at the level of precise protein connectivity rankings and module protein membership [61, 89–94].”

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
Allen, J. D., Xie, Y., Chen, M., Girard, L., & Xiao, G.
Affiliations
  • The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center (US)
  • Harold C. Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center (US)
Corresponding author
Xiao, Guanghua
Venue
PLoS ONE
Published
2012-01-17
Volume
7
Issue
1
Pages
e29348
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2061971803
Cited by
186
References
46
Citations by year
2025: 4 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 22 · 2016: 20 · 2015: 25 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 24 · 2012: 9
FWCI
9.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (0907562)
  • National Institutes of Health (RR024982)
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (R33DA027592, R21DA027592)
  • National Cancer Institute ((P50-CA70907, R01CA152301, P50CA070907)
  • National Center for Research Resources (UL1RR024982)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gene Regulatory Network Analysis
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Bioinformatics and Genomic Networks
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Microbial Metabolic Engineering and Bioproduction
Keywords
gene regulatory networks, network inference, weighted gene co-expression network analysis, ARACNE, hub genes, sensitivity and specificity, Escherichia coli, method comparison
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Escherichia coli, Reproducibility of Results, Computational Biology, Protein Interaction Mapping, Escherichia coli Proteins, Gene Regulatory Networks, Protein Interaction Maps

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