We found tremendous inequality across gene and protein annotation resources. We observed that this bias leads biomedical researchers to focus on richly annotated genes instead of those with the strongest molecular data. We advocate that researchers reduce these biases by pursuing data-driven hypotheses.

A major contributor to the scientific reproducibility crisis has been that the results from homogeneous, single-center studies do not generalize to heterogeneous, real world populations. Multi-cohort gene expression analysis has helped to increase reproducibility by aggregating data from diverse populations into a single analysis. To make the multi-cohort analysis process more feasible, we have assembled an analysis pipeline which implements rigorously studied meta-analysis best practices. We have compiled and made publicly available the results of our own multi-cohort gene expression analysis of 103 diseases, spanning 615 studies and 36,915 samples, through a novel and interactive web application. As a result, we have made both the process of and the results from multi-cohort gene expression analysis more approachable for non-technical users.

Gene Ontology (GO) enrichment analysis is ubiquitously used for interpreting high throughput molecular data and generating hypotheses about underlying biological phenomena of experiments. However, the two building blocks of this analysis — the ontology and the annotations — evolve rapidly. We used gene signatures derived from 104 disease analyses to systematically evaluate how enrichment analysis results were affected by evolution of the GO over a decade. We found low consistency between enrichment analyses results obtained with early and more recent GO versions. Furthermore, there continues to be a strong annotation bias in the GO annotations where 58% of the annotations are for 16% of the human genes. Our analysis suggests that GO evolution may have affected the interpretation and possibly reproducibility of experiments over time. Hence, researchers must exercise caution when interpreting GO enrichment analyses and should reexamine previous analyses with the most recent GO version.

A major contributor to the scientific reproducibility crisis has been that the results from homogeneous, single-center studies do not generalize to heterogeneous, real world populations. Multi-cohort gene expression analysis has helped to increase reproducibility by aggregating data from diverse populations into a single analysis. To make the multi-cohort analysis process more feasible, we have assembled an analysis pipeline which implements rigorously studied meta-analysis best practices. We have compiled and made publicly available the results of our own multi-cohort gene expression analysis of 103 diseases, spanning 615 studies and 36,915 samples, through a novel and interactive web application. As a result, we have made both the process of and the results from multi-cohort gene expression analysis more approachable for non-technical users.

Gene Ontology (GO) enrichment analysis is ubiquitously used for interpreting high throughput molecular data and generating hypotheses about underlying biological phenomena of experiments. However, the two building blocks of this analysis -the ontology and the annotations -evolve rapidly. We used gene signatures derived from 104 disease analyses to systematically evaluate how enrichment analysis results were affected by evolution of the GO over a decade. We found low consistency between enrichment analyses results obtained with early and more recent GO versions. Furthermore, there continues to be strong annotation bias in the GO annotations where 58% of the annotations are for 16% of the human genes. Our analysis suggests that GO evolution may have affected the interpretation and possibly reproducibility of experiments over time. Hence, researchers must exercise caution when interpreting GO enrichment analyses and should reexamine previous analyses with the most recent GO version.