Publication Date: 12 Feb 2014
Type: Original Research
Journal: Cancer Informatics
Citation: Cancer Informatics 2014:13(S1)1-16
doi: 10.4137/CIN.S13305
Gene set enrichment analysis (GSA) methods have been widely adopted by biological labs to analyze data and generate hypotheses for validation. Most of the existing comparison studies focus on whether the existing GSA methods can produce accurate P-values; however, practitioners are often more concerned with the correct gene-set ranking generated by the methods. The ranking performance is closely related to two critical goals associated with GSA methods: the ability to reveal biological themes and ensuring reproducibility, especially for small-sample studies. We have conducted a comprehensive simulation study focusing on the ranking performance of seven representative GSA methods. We overcome the limitation on the availability of real data sets by creating hybrid data models from existing large data sets. To build the data model, we pick a master gene from the data set to form the ground truth and artificially generate the phenotype labels. Multiple hybrid data models can be constructed from one data set and multiple data sets of smaller sizes can be generated by resampling the original data set. This approach enables us to generate a large batch of data sets to check the ranking performance of GSA methods. Our simulation study reveals that for the proposed data model, the Q2 type GSA methods have in general better performance than other GSA methods and the global test has the most robust results. The properties of a data set play a critical role in the performance. For the data sets with highly connected genes, all GSA methods suffer significantly in performance.
PDF (1.38 MB PDF FORMAT)
RIS citation (ENDNOTE, REFERENCE MANAGER, PROCITE, REFWORKS)
Supplementary Files 1 (4.38 MB ZIP FORMAT)
BibTex citation (BIBDESK, LATEX)
PMC HTML
Publishing in Cancer Informatics was the fastest publication I have ever experienced and has received the highest viewing rate. So it is a great place to publish your very latest research.
All authors are surveyed after their articles are published. Authors are asked to rate their experience in a variety of areas, and their responses help us to monitor our performance. Presented here are their responses in some key areas. No 'poor' or 'very poor' responses were received; these are represented in the 'other' category.See Our Results
Copyright © 2014 Libertas Academica Ltd (except open access articles and accompanying metadata and supplementary files.)
Facebook Google+ Twitter
Pinterest Tumblr YouTube