4.6 Review

Methods and approaches in the topology-based analysis of biological pathways

Journal

FRONTIERS IN PHYSIOLOGY
Volume 4, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fphys.2013.00278

Keywords

pathway analysis; topology; signaling pathways; metabolic pathways; mathematical model; network topology; statistical significance

Categories

Funding

  1. NIH [RO1 DK089167, STTR R42GM087013]
  2. NSF [DBI-0965741]
  3. Direct For Biological Sciences [0965741] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The goal of pathway analysis is to identify the pathways significantly impacted in a given phenotype. Many current methods are based on algorithms that consider pathways as simple gene lists, dramatically under-utilizing the knowledge that such pathways are meant to capture. During the past few years, a plethora of methods claiming to incorporate various aspects of the pathway topology have been proposed. These topology-based methods, sometimes referred to as third generation, have the potential to better model the phenomena described by pathways. Although there is now a large variety of approaches used for this purpose, no review is currently available to offer guidance for potential users and developers. This review covers 22 such topology-based pathway analysis methods published in the last decade. We compare these methods based on: type of pathways analyzed (e.g., signaling or metabolic), input (subset of genes, all genes, fold changes, gene p-values, etc.), mathematical models, pathway scoring approaches, output (one or more pathway scores, p-values, etc.) and implementation (web-based, standalone, etc.). We identify and discuss challenges, arising both in methodology and in pathway representation, including inconsistent terminology, different data formats, lack of meaningful benchmarks, and the lack of tissue and condition specificity.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available