Warning: file_get_contents(https://eutils.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/elink.fcgi?dbfrom=pubmed&id=29151892
&cmd=llinks): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 215
Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 213.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534
Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 213.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534
Warning: imagejpeg(C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\phplern\29151892
.jpg): Failed to open stream: No such file or directory in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 117 BioData+Min
2017 ; 10
(ä): 32
Nephropedia Template TP
gab.com Text
Twit Text FOAVip
Twit Text #
English Wikipedia
Metrics to estimate differential co-expression networks
#MMPMID29151892
Gonzalez-Valbuena EE
; Treviño V
BioData Min
2017[]; 10
(ä): 32
PMID29151892
show ga
BACKGROUND: Detecting the differences in gene expression data is important for
understanding the underlying molecular mechanisms. Although the differentially
expressed genes are a large component, differences in correlation are becoming an
interesting approach to achieving deeper insights. However, diverse metrics have
been used to detect differential correlation, making selection and use of a
single metric difficult. In addition, available implementations are
metric-specific, complicating their use in different contexts. Moreover, because
the analyses in the literature have been performed on real data, there are
uncertainties regarding the performance of metrics and procedures. RESULTS: In
this work, we compare four novel and two previously proposed metrics to detect
differential correlations. We generated well-controlled datasets into which
differences in correlations were carefully introduced by controlled multivariate
normal correlation networks and addition of noise. The comparisons were performed
on three datasets derived from real tumor data. Our results show that metrics
differ in their detection performance and computational time. No single metric
was the best in all datasets, but trends show that three metrics are highly
correlated and are very good candidates for real data analysis. In contrast,
other metrics proposed in the literature seem to show low performance and
different detections. Overall, our results suggest that metrics that do not
filter correlations perform better. We also show an additional analysis of TCGA
breast cancer subtypes. CONCLUSIONS: We show a methodology to generate controlled
datasets for the objective evaluation of differential correlation pipelines, and
compare the performance of several metrics. We implemented in R a package called
DifCoNet that can provide easy-to-use functions for differential correlation
analyses.