4.6 Article

Evaluation and comparison of bioinformatic tools for the enrichment analysis of metabolomics data

期刊

BMC BIOINFORMATICS
卷 19, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12859-017-2006-0

关键词

Bioinformatic tools; Database; Enrichment; HumanCyc; KEGG; Metabolite; Metabolomics; Over-representation analysis; Pathway; Reactome

资金

  1. Plan N de I + D + i [PI13/01172]
  2. ISCII-Subdireccion General de Evaluacion y Fomento de la Investigacion [MTM2015/64465-C2-1-R]
  3. MINECO
  4. CIBERfes
  5. Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional (FEDER)
  6. Generalitat de Catalunya's Agency (AGAUR) [2014SGR1566, 2014SGR464]
  7. Juan de la Cierva postdoctoral fellowship (MINECO)
  8. University of Barcelona
  9. Ramon y Cajal postdoctoral fellowship (MINECO)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Bioinformatic tools for the enrichment of 'omics' datasets facilitate interpretation and understanding of data. To date few are suitable for metabolomics datasets. The main objective of this work is to give a critical overview, for the first time, of the performance of these tools. To that aim, datasets from metabolomic repositories were selected and enriched data were created. Both types of data were analysed with these tools and outputs were thoroughly examined. Results: An exploratory multivariate analysis of the most used tools for the enrichment of metabolite sets, based on a non-metric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) of Jaccard's distances, was performed and mirrored their diversity. Codes (identifiers) of the metabolites of the datasets were searched in different metabolite databases (HMDB, KEGG, PubChem, ChEBI, BioCyc/HumanCyc, LipidMAPS, ChemSpider, METLIN and Recon2). The databases that presented more identifiers of the metabolites of the dataset were PubChem, followed by METLIN and ChEBI. However, these databases had duplicated entries and might present false positives. The performance of over-representation analysis (ORA) tools, including BioCyc/HumanCyc, ConsensusPathDB, IMPaLA, MBRole, MetaboAnalyst, Metabox, MetExplore, MPEA, PathVisio and Reactome and the mapping tool KEGGREST, was examined. Results were mostly consistent among tools and between real and enriched data despite the variability of the tools. Nevertheless, a few controversial results such as differences in the total number of metabolites were also found. Disease-based enrichment analyses were also assessed, but they were not found to be accurate probably due to the fact that metabolite disease sets are not up-to-date and the difficulty of predicting diseases from a list of metabolites. Conclusions: We have extensively reviewed the state-of-the-art of the available range of tools for metabolomic datasets, the completeness of metabolite databases, the performance of ORA methods and disease-based analyses. Despite the variability of the tools, they provided consistent results independent of their analytic approach. However, more work on the completeness of metabolite and pathway databases is required, which strongly affects the accuracy of enrichment analyses. Improvements will be translated into more accurate and global insights of the metabolome.

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