↓ Skip to main content

PLOS

When Is Hub Gene Selection Better than Standard Meta-Analysis?

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, April 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 X user
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
253 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
399 Mendeley
citeulike
5 CiteULike
Title
When Is Hub Gene Selection Better than Standard Meta-Analysis?
Published in
PLOS ONE, April 2013
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0061505
Pubmed ID
Authors

Peter Langfelder, Paul S. Mischel, Steve Horvath

Abstract

Since hub nodes have been found to play important roles in many networks, highly connected hub genes are expected to play an important role in biology as well. However, the empirical evidence remains ambiguous. An open question is whether (or when) hub gene selection leads to more meaningful gene lists than a standard statistical analysis based on significance testing when analyzing genomic data sets (e.g., gene expression or DNA methylation data). Here we address this question for the special case when multiple genomic data sets are available. This is of great practical importance since for many research questions multiple data sets are publicly available. In this case, the data analyst can decide between a standard statistical approach (e.g., based on meta-analysis) and a co-expression network analysis approach that selects intramodular hubs in consensus modules. We assess the performance of these two types of approaches according to two criteria. The first criterion evaluates the biological insights gained and is relevant in basic research. The second criterion evaluates the validation success (reproducibility) in independent data sets and often applies in clinical diagnostic or prognostic applications. We compare meta-analysis with consensus network analysis based on weighted correlation network analysis (WGCNA) in three comprehensive and unbiased empirical studies: (1) Finding genes predictive of lung cancer survival, (2) finding methylation markers related to age, and (3) finding mouse genes related to total cholesterol. The results demonstrate that intramodular hub gene status with respect to consensus modules is more useful than a meta-analysis p-value when identifying biologically meaningful gene lists (reflecting criterion 1). However, standard meta-analysis methods perform as good as (if not better than) a consensus network approach in terms of validation success (criterion 2). The article also reports a comparison of meta-analysis techniques applied to gene expression data and presents novel R functions for carrying out consensus network analysis, network based screening, and meta analysis.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 399 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 12 3%
Brazil 4 1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Netherlands 2 <1%
Sweden 2 <1%
India 2 <1%
Spain 2 <1%
Taiwan 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Other 2 <1%
Unknown 369 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 102 26%
Researcher 95 24%
Student > Master 37 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 25 6%
Student > Bachelor 23 6%
Other 66 17%
Unknown 51 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 152 38%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 68 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 27 7%
Computer Science 18 5%
Neuroscience 17 4%
Other 51 13%
Unknown 66 17%