Cited by 10Gene Regulatory Network AnalysisBioinformatics and Genomic NetworksGene expression and cancer classification

Discovering study-specific gene regulatory networks

Open access
Bo, Valeria, Curtis, Tanya, Lysenko, Artem, Saqi, Mansoor, Swift, Stephen, Tucker, Allan·2014·PLoS ONE

Abstract

Microarrays are commonly used in biology because of their ability to simultaneously measure thousands of genes under different conditions. Due to their structure, typically containing a high amount of variables but far fewer samples, scalable network analysis techniques are often employed. In particular, consensus approaches have been recently used that combine multiple microarray studies in order to find networks that are more robust. The purpose of this paper, however, is to combine multiple microarray studies to automatically identify subnetworks that are distinctive to specific experimental conditions rather than common to them all. To better understand key regulatory mechanisms and how they change under different conditions, we derive unique networks from multiple independent networks built using glasso which goes beyond standard correlations. This involves calculating cluster prediction accuracies to detect the most predictive genes for a specific set of conditions. We differentiate between accuracies calculated using cross-validation within a selected cluster of studies (the intra prediction accuracy) and those calculated on a set of independent studies belonging to different study clusters (inter prediction accuracy). Finally, we compare our method's results to related state-of-the art techniques. We explore how the proposed pipeline performs on both synthetic data and real data (wheat and Fusarium). Our results show that subnetworks can be identified reliably that are specific to subsets of studies and that these networks reflect key mechanisms that are fundamental to the experimental conditions in each of those subsets.

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.0106524

Cites

62 of 62 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?

  • Biclustering does not necessarily perform better than other network analysis methods such as WGCNA, as shown by a comparison using different tools on simulated data.

    “Although biclustering is a powerful approach, it does not necessarily perform better than other network analysis methods such as WGCNA, as shown by a comparison using different tools on simulated data [144].”

    From Gene co-expression analysis for functional classification and gene–disease predictions (2017) · cites this paper as [144]

    The Biclustering section reports that Questmotif biclustering performed worse than the authors’ pipeline on simulated data. It does not establish that biclustering performed worse than WGCNA: the WGCNA comparisons in the Wheat and Fusarium sections are against glasso, not biclustering. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bo, V., Curtis, T., Lysenko, A., Saqi, M., Swift, S., & Tucker, A.
Affiliations
  • Brunel University of London (GB)
  • Rothamsted Research (GB)
Corresponding author
Bo, Valeria
Venue
PLoS ONE
Published
2014-09-05
Volume
9
Issue
9
Pages
e106524
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2096904336
Cited by
10
References
62
Citations by year
2024: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 1
FWCI
0.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Rothamsted Repository (Rothamsted Repository) (submittedVersion)
  • Brunel University Research Archive (BURA) (Brunel University London) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Brunel University Research Archive (BURA) (Brunel University London) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBS/E/C/00005205, BB/I020918/1)
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 › Gene expression and cancer classification
Keywords
gene regulatory networks, microarray data integration, graphical lasso, sparse precision matrix estimation, wheat, Fusarium, plant-pathogen interaction
MeSH terms
Fusarium, Triticum, Cluster Analysis, Computational Biology, Gene Expression Profiling, Gene Regulatory Networks, Datasets as Topic

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