2019
DOI: 10.1186/s13059-019-1882-1
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Correction to: Identifying significantly impacted pathways: a comprehensive review and assessment

Abstract: Following publication of the original paper [1], the authors reported the following update to the competing interests declaration.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
6
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
3

Relationship

1
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 1 publication
0
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Scientists can use pathway enrichment analysis to acquire mechanistic insight into gene lists generated by genome-scale (omics) investigations. This approach finds biological pathways that are more enriched in a gene list than is expected by chance ( Nguyen et al, 2019 ). Innovative pathway enrichment analysis methodologies and provide a step-by-step guidance for interpreting gene lists generated by RNA-seq and genome-sequencing research.…”
Section: Proteomicsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Scientists can use pathway enrichment analysis to acquire mechanistic insight into gene lists generated by genome-scale (omics) investigations. This approach finds biological pathways that are more enriched in a gene list than is expected by chance ( Nguyen et al, 2019 ). Innovative pathway enrichment analysis methodologies and provide a step-by-step guidance for interpreting gene lists generated by RNA-seq and genome-sequencing research.…”
Section: Proteomicsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…By casting gene-level measurements in a broader biological context, this approach allows researchers to interpret their data in terms of a great variety of gene sets that may represent different functions, processes, components, or associations with disease. The success of pathway enrichment analysis, however, led to a very complex state of affairs with more than 70 different methods and hundreds of variants published to date [1][2][3][4] compounded by more than 33,000 human gene sets available from the Molecular Signatures Database (MSigDB) [5] alone, a scenario that has become extremely difficult to navigate.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Existing methods have been categorized in various ways; for the purpose of our work, we are primarily concerned with over-representation analysis (ORA), whose input is an unranked list of genes (selected from the full list of measured genes by imposing a threshold criterion), and functional class scoring (FCS), whose input is the full list of measured genes (ranked based on quantitative scores) [6]. In recent years, several groups have discussed and implemented benchmarks to compare findings from different tools as well as to evaluate multiple factors that affect the results of enrichment analysis [1,[7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15]. Typically, these benchmarking efforts were aimed at comparing many different tools belonging to one or more broad categories, such as ORA and FCS.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The first such method, impact analysis ( Draghici et al, 2007 ; Tarca et al, 2009 ), was soon followed by a plethora of over 20 other approaches ( Khatri et al, 2012 ; Mitrea et al, 2013 ; Nguyen et al, 2018 ). Many of these methods have been bench-marked recently ( Nguyen et al, 2019 ).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Despite the existence of a large number of gene set analysis methods, there is little consistency among different methods when analyzing the same gene expression dataset ( Maleki et al, 2019b ; Nguyen et al, 2019 ). Although gene set overlap is a common phenomenon in gene set databases, most gene set analysis methods disregard such an overlap.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%