Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Differential gene expression in disease: a comparison between high-throughput studies and the literature
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Differential gene expression in disease: a comparison between high-throughput studies and the literature
Do you wish to request the book?
Differential gene expression in disease: a comparison between high-throughput studies and the literature
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Differential gene expression in disease: a comparison between high-throughput studies and the literature
2017
Overview
Background
Differential gene expression is important to understand the biological differences between healthy and diseased states. Two common sources of differential gene expression data are microarray studies and the biomedical literature.
Methods
With the aid of text mining and gene expression analysis we have examined the comparative properties of these two sources of differential gene expression data.
Results
The literature shows a preference for reporting genes associated to higher fold changes in microarray data, rather than genes that are simply significantly differentially expressed. Thus, the resemblance between the literature and microarray data increases when the fold-change threshold for microarray data is increased. Moreover, the literature has a reporting preference for differentially expressed genes that (1) are overexpressed rather than underexpressed; (2) are overexpressed in multiple diseases; and (3) are popular in the biomedical literature at large. Additionally, the degree to which diseases are similar depends on whether microarray data or the literature is used to compare them. Finally, vaguely-qualified reports of differential expression magnitudes in the literature have only small correlation with microarray fold-change data.
Conclusions
Reporting biases of differential gene expression in the literature can be affecting our appreciation of disease biology and of the degree of similarity that actually exists between different diseases.
Publisher
BioMed Central,BioMed Central Ltd,Springer Nature B.V,BMC
Subject
