DataPDF Available

Supplementary Material 2

October 2017

License
CC BY 4.0

Authors:

Raul Rodriguez-Esteban

Roche

Available via license: CC BY 4.0

Content may be subject to copyright.

A preview of the PDF is not available

12920_2017_293_MOESM2_E

SM.tif

Image

120.48 KB

Download file

ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.

ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.

Differential gene expression in disease: A comparison between high-throughput studies and the literature

Article

October 2017

Raul Rodriguez-Esteban · Xiaoyu Jiang

TECENTRIQ combination* is now approved for 1L metastatic non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (mN...

April 2019

TECENTRIQ, in combination with Avastin (bevacizumab) and carboplatin/paclitaxel (carbo/pac) is a new regimen indicated for 1L treatment of mNSCLC. TECENTRIQ combination* is the first cancer immunotherapy to demonstrate meaningful OS advantage in EGFR/ALK+ who have previously progressed on...

View post

Article

Full-text available

Differential gene expression in disease: A comparison between high-throughput studies and the litera...

October 2017 · BMC Medical Genomics

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 ... [Show full abstract] 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. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12920-017-0293-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

View full-text

Data

Full-text available