IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0079217.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Comparison of Gene Set Analysis Methods in Terms of Sensitivity, Prioritization and Specificity

Author

Listed:
  • Adi L Tarca
  • Gaurav Bhatti
  • Roberto Romero

Abstract

Identification of functional sets of genes associated with conditions of interest from omics data was first reported in 1999, and since, a plethora of enrichment methods were published for systematic analysis of gene sets collections including Gene Ontology and biological pathways. Despite their widespread usage in reducing the complexity of omics experiment results, their performance is poorly understood. Leveraging the existence of disease specific gene sets in KEGG and Metacore® databases, we compared the performance of sixteen methods under relaxed assumptions while using 42 real datasets (over 1,400 samples). Most of the methods ranked high the gene sets designed for specific diseases whenever samples from affected individuals were compared against controls via microarrays. The top methods for gene set prioritization were different from the top ones in terms of sensitivity, and four of the sixteen methods had large false positives rates assessed by permuting the phenotype of the samples. The best overall methods among those that generated reasonably low false positive rates, when permuting phenotypes, were PLAGE, GLOBALTEST, and PADOG. The best method in the category that generated higher than expected false positives was MRGSE.

Suggested Citation

  • Adi L Tarca & Gaurav Bhatti & Roberto Romero, 2013. "A Comparison of Gene Set Analysis Methods in Terms of Sensitivity, Prioritization and Specificity," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(11), pages 1-10, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0079217
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0079217
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0079217
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0079217&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0079217?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0079217. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.