4.7 Review

Ontological analysis of gene expression data: current tools, limitations, and open problems

Journal

BIOINFORMATICS
Volume 21, Issue 18, Pages 3587-3595

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/bioinformatics/bti565

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NCI NIH HHS [R21 CA100740, R21 CA100740-01, 1R21CA10074001] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NCRR NIH HHS [1S10 RR017857-01, S10 RR017857, S10 RR017857-01] Funding Source: Medline
  3. NIBIB NIH HHS [R21 EB000990, 1R21 EB00990-01, R21 EB000990-01] Funding Source: Medline
  4. NINDS NIH HHS [R01 NS045207, R01 NS045207-01, 1R01 NS045207-01] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Independent of the platform and the analysis methods used, the result of a microarray experiment is, in most cases, a list of differentially expressed genes. An automatic ontological analysis approach has been recently proposed to help with the biological interpretation of such results. Currently, this approach is the de facto standard for the secondary analysis of high throughput experiments and a large number of tools have been developed for this purpose. We present a detailed comparison of 14 such tools using the following criteria: scope of the analysis, visualization capabilities, statistical model(s) used, correction for multiple comparisons, reference microarrays available, installation issues and sources of annotation data. This detailed analysis of the capabilities of these tools will help researchers choose the most appropriate tool for a given type of analysis. More importantly, in spite of the fact that this type of analysis has been generally adopted, this approach has several important intrinsic drawbacks. These drawbacks are associated with all tools discussed and represent conceptual limitations of the current state-of-the-art in ontological analysis. We propose these as challenges for the next generation of secondary data analysis tools.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available