ABRF 生物信息学核心机构使用的功能注释例程--观察、比较和考虑因素。

Q4 Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology Journal of Biomolecular Techniques Pub Date : 2023-03-27 eCollection Date: 2023-03-31 DOI:10.7171/3fc1f5fe.0b74b9db
Charles A Whittaker, Alper Kucukural, Chris Gates, Owen Michael Wilkins, George W Bell, John N Hutchinson, Shawn W Polson, Julie Dragon
{"title":"ABRF 生物信息学核心机构使用的功能注释例程--观察、比较和考虑因素。","authors":"Charles A Whittaker, Alper Kucukural, Chris Gates, Owen Michael Wilkins, George W Bell, John N Hutchinson, Shawn W Polson, Julie Dragon","doi":"10.7171/3fc1f5fe.0b74b9db","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The functional annotation of gene lists is a common analysis routine required for most genomics experiments, and bioinformatics core facilities must support these analyses. In contrast to methods such as the quantitation of RNA-Seq reads or differential expression analysis, our research group noted a lack of consensus in our preferred approaches to functional annotation. To investigate this observation, we selected 4 experiments that represent a range of experimental designs encountered by our cores and analyzed those data with 6 tools used by members of the Association of Biomolecular Resource Facilities (ABRF) Genomic Bioinformatics Research Group (GBIRG). To facilitate comparisons between tools, we focused on a single biological result for each experiment. These results were represented by a gene set, and we analyzed these gene sets with each tool considered in our study to map the result to the annotation categories presented by each tool. In most cases, each tool produces data that would facilitate identification of the selected biological result for each experiment. For the exceptions, Fisher's exact test parameters could be adjusted to detect the result. Because Fisher's exact test is used by many functional annotation tools, we investigated input parameters and demonstrate that, while background set size is unlikely to have a significant impact on the results, the numbers of differentially expressed genes in an annotation category and the total number of differentially expressed genes under consideration are both critical parameters that may need to be modified during analyses. In addition, we note that differences in the annotation categories tested by each tool, as well as the composition of those categories, can have a significant impact on results.</p>","PeriodicalId":39617,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Biomolecular Techniques","volume":"34 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10121236/pdf/jbt-34-1-esvdptzs.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Functional Annotation Routines Used by ABRF Bioinformatics Core Facilities - Observations, Comparisons, and Considerations.\",\"authors\":\"Charles A Whittaker, Alper Kucukural, Chris Gates, Owen Michael Wilkins, George W Bell, John N Hutchinson, Shawn W Polson, Julie Dragon\",\"doi\":\"10.7171/3fc1f5fe.0b74b9db\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The functional annotation of gene lists is a common analysis routine required for most genomics experiments, and bioinformatics core facilities must support these analyses. In contrast to methods such as the quantitation of RNA-Seq reads or differential expression analysis, our research group noted a lack of consensus in our preferred approaches to functional annotation. To investigate this observation, we selected 4 experiments that represent a range of experimental designs encountered by our cores and analyzed those data with 6 tools used by members of the Association of Biomolecular Resource Facilities (ABRF) Genomic Bioinformatics Research Group (GBIRG). To facilitate comparisons between tools, we focused on a single biological result for each experiment. These results were represented by a gene set, and we analyzed these gene sets with each tool considered in our study to map the result to the annotation categories presented by each tool. In most cases, each tool produces data that would facilitate identification of the selected biological result for each experiment. For the exceptions, Fisher's exact test parameters could be adjusted to detect the result. Because Fisher's exact test is used by many functional annotation tools, we investigated input parameters and demonstrate that, while background set size is unlikely to have a significant impact on the results, the numbers of differentially expressed genes in an annotation category and the total number of differentially expressed genes under consideration are both critical parameters that may need to be modified during analyses. In addition, we note that differences in the annotation categories tested by each tool, as well as the composition of those categories, can have a significant impact on results.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":39617,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Biomolecular Techniques\",\"volume\":\"34 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10121236/pdf/jbt-34-1-esvdptzs.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Biomolecular Techniques\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.7171/3fc1f5fe.0b74b9db\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/3/31 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Biomolecular Techniques","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7171/3fc1f5fe.0b74b9db","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/3/31 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

基因列表的功能注释是大多数基因组学实验所需的常见分析程序,生物信息学核心设施必须为这些分析提供支持。与 RNA-Seq 读数定量或差异表达分析等方法相比,我们的研究小组注意到,在功能注释的首选方法上缺乏共识。为了研究这一现象,我们选择了 4 项实验,这些实验代表了我们核心遇到的一系列实验设计,并用生物分子资源设施协会(ABRF)基因组生物信息学研究组(GBIRG)成员使用的 6 种工具分析了这些数据。为了便于工具之间的比较,我们将重点放在每个实验的单一生物学结果上。这些结果由基因组表示,我们用研究中考虑的每种工具分析这些基因组,将结果映射到每种工具提供的注释类别中。在大多数情况下,每种工具生成的数据都有助于确定每个实验所选的生物学结果。对于例外情况,可以调整费雪精确检验参数来检测结果。由于许多功能注释工具都使用费雪精确检验,我们对输入参数进行了调查,结果表明,虽然背景集大小不太可能对结果产生重大影响,但注释类别中差异表达基因的数量和考虑的差异表达基因总数都是关键参数,在分析过程中可能需要修改。此外,我们还注意到,每种工具所测试的注释类别以及这些类别的构成不同,也会对结果产生重大影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Functional Annotation Routines Used by ABRF Bioinformatics Core Facilities - Observations, Comparisons, and Considerations.

The functional annotation of gene lists is a common analysis routine required for most genomics experiments, and bioinformatics core facilities must support these analyses. In contrast to methods such as the quantitation of RNA-Seq reads or differential expression analysis, our research group noted a lack of consensus in our preferred approaches to functional annotation. To investigate this observation, we selected 4 experiments that represent a range of experimental designs encountered by our cores and analyzed those data with 6 tools used by members of the Association of Biomolecular Resource Facilities (ABRF) Genomic Bioinformatics Research Group (GBIRG). To facilitate comparisons between tools, we focused on a single biological result for each experiment. These results were represented by a gene set, and we analyzed these gene sets with each tool considered in our study to map the result to the annotation categories presented by each tool. In most cases, each tool produces data that would facilitate identification of the selected biological result for each experiment. For the exceptions, Fisher's exact test parameters could be adjusted to detect the result. Because Fisher's exact test is used by many functional annotation tools, we investigated input parameters and demonstrate that, while background set size is unlikely to have a significant impact on the results, the numbers of differentially expressed genes in an annotation category and the total number of differentially expressed genes under consideration are both critical parameters that may need to be modified during analyses. In addition, we note that differences in the annotation categories tested by each tool, as well as the composition of those categories, can have a significant impact on results.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Biomolecular Techniques
Journal of Biomolecular Techniques Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology-Molecular Biology
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
9
期刊介绍: The Journal of Biomolecular Techniques is a peer-reviewed publication issued five times a year by the Association of Biomolecular Resource Facilities. The Journal was established to promote the central role biotechnology plays in contemporary research activities, to disseminate information among biomolecular resource facilities, and to communicate the biotechnology research conducted by the Association’s Research Groups and members, as well as other investigators.
期刊最新文献
Effect of Different Polishing Systems on Surface Roughness of IPS Empress Ceramic Materials Evaluation of the Effect of Nano and Micro Hydroxyapatite Particles on the Impact Strength of Acrylic Resin: In Vitro Study The Effect of Recycled CAD/CAM PEEK Fibers on the Transverse Strength of Repaired Acrylic Resin Assessment of Vitamin D3 Level Among a Sample of Type 2 Diabetic Patients Attending Diabetes and Endocrinology Center in Al-Hilla City The Impact of Digital Transformation in Enhancing Operational Performance: An Applied Study in the Kirkuk Electricity Distribution Branch
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1