4.6 Article

Functional Analysis beyond Enrichment: Non-Redundant Reciprocal Linkage of Genes and Biological Terms

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 6, 期 9, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0024289

关键词

-

资金

  1. EU [223411]
  2. Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation MICINN-ISCiii [PI061153, PS09/00843]
  3. Regional Government, Junta de Castilla y Leon JCyL [CSI07A09]
  4. MICINN [BIO2010-17527]
  5. Juan de la Cierva Program
  6. CSIC JAE-PREDOC Program

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Functional analysis of large sets of genes and proteins is becoming more and more necessary with the increase of experimental biomolecular data at omic-scale. Enrichment analysis is by far the most popular available methodology to derive functional implications of sets of cooperating genes. The problem with these techniques relies in the redundancy of resulting information, that in most cases generate lots of trivial results with high risk to mask the reality of key biological events. We present and describe a computational method, called GeneTerm Linker, that filters and links enriched output data identifying sets of associated genes and terms, producing metagroups of coherent biological significance. The method uses fuzzy reciprocal linkage between genes and terms to unravel their functional convergence and associations. The algorithm is tested with a small set of well known interacting proteins from yeast and with a large collection of reference sets from three heterogeneous resources: multiprotein complexes (CORUM), cellular pathways (SGD) and human diseases (OMIM). Statistical Precision, Recall and balanced F-score are calculated showing robust results, even when different levels of random noise are included in the test sets. Although we could not find an equivalent method, we present a comparative analysis with a widely used method that combines enrichment and functional annotation clustering. A web application to use the method here proposed is provided at http://gtlinker.cnb.csic.es.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据