Skip to main content

oCEM: Automatic detection and analysis of overlapping co-expressed gene modules

Abstract

Background

When it comes to the co-expressed gene module detection, its typical challenges consist of overlap between identified modules and local co-expression in a subset of biological samples. The nature of module detection is the use of unsupervised clustering approaches and algorithms. Those methods are advanced undoubtedly, but the selection of a certain clustering method for sample- and gene-clustering tasks is separate, in which the latter task is often more complicated.

Results

This study presented an R-package, Overlapping CoExpressed gene Module (oCEM), armed with the decomposition methods to solve the challenges above. We also developed a novel auxiliary statistical approach to select the optimal number of principal components using a permutation procedure. We showed that oCEM outperformed state-of-the-art techniques in the ability to detect biologically relevant modules additionally.

Conclusions

oCEM helped non-technical users easily perform complicated statistical analyses and then gain robust results. oCEM and its applications, along with example data, were freely provided at https://github.com/huynguyen250896/oCEM.

Background

The introduction of genome-wide gene expression profiling technologies observed so far has turned the biological interpretation of large gene expression compendia using module detection methods to be a crucial pillar [1,2,3]. Here, a module itself is a set of genes that are similarly functioned and jointly expressed. Co-expressed modules do not only help to globally and objectively interpret gene expression data [4, 5], but it is also used to discover regulatory relationships between putative target genes and transcription factors [6,7,8]. Also, it is useful to study the origin [9] and development [10] of complex diseases caused by many factors.

The nature of module detection is the use of unsupervised clustering approaches and algorithms. Those methods are advanced undoubtedly, but the selection of a certain clustering method for sample- and gene-clustering tasks is separate, in which the latter task is often more complicated. Indeed, users should predetermine the following limitations before applying clustering methods to gene expression. Firstly, not all clustering methods have the ability to tackle the problem of overlap between modules. While clustering patients into biologically distinct subgroups is our ultimate goal, the way to group genes into functional modules need to be more careful since genes often do not work alone; e.g., previous studies have reported that at least five genes work in concert [11] and that their interaction is associated with multiple pathways [12]. Secondly, clustering methods often ignore local co-expression effects which only appear in a subset of all biological samples and instead are interested in co-expression among all samples. This results in loss of meaningful information due to highly context-specific transcriptional regulation [13]. Among existing clustering methods, decomposition methods [14] and biclustering [15] are said to possibly handle the two above restrictions. These obviously affect the selection of which clustering method in the context of gene expression; however, it is rarely examined sufficiently, leading to a typical example is the tool weighted gene co-expression network analysis (WGCNA) [16] with a hierarchical agglomerative clustering [17].

Wouter Saelens et al [18] have conducted a holistic comparison of module detection methods for gene expression data and realized that the decomposition methods, including independent component analysis (ICA) [19,20,21], principal component analysis (PCA) [22], and independent principal component analysis (IPCA) [23], are the best. In this study, we have proposed an R tool, named Overlapping CoExpressed gene Module (oCEM), which integrated these methods in the hope that it could be a potential alternative to rectify the limitations above. In particular, we developed a state-of-the-art statistical method, called optimizeCOM, to specify the optimal number of principal components in advance required by the decomposition methods. Then, the function overlapCEM available in oCEM supported users to implement the module detection and analysis automatically. These helped non-technical users to easily perform complicated statistical analyses and gain robust results in a surprisingly rapid way. We also demonstrated better performance of oCEM in comparison to other high-tech methods in terms of identification of clinically relevant co-expressed modules.

Implementation

Overview of oCEM

Figure 1 shows the automatic framework for module detection and analysis included in oCEM. Gene expression matrix first suffered from the two pre-processing steps: excluding outlier individuals and normalization prior to being the input of oCEM. The result of normalization was that the distribution of each gene expression was centered and standardized across samples. The user now put the data to oCEM, and it printed automatically out the following results: (i) co-expressed gene modules (the module was determined from a particular component by using one of the optional post-processing steps described above), (ii) hub-genes specific to each module, and (iii) analysis result of associations between each module and each clinical feature of choice (e.g., tumor stages, glycemic index, weight,…). Note that oCEM decomposed the expression matrix into the product of two or more sub-matrices by only using one of the two decomposition methods, including ICA (the fastICA algorithm) and IPCA (the ipca algorithm). oCEM did not include PCA because of the following reasons: (i) PCA assumes that gene expression follows a Gaussian distribution; however, many recent studies have demonstrated that microarray gene expression measurements follow a non-Gaussian distribution instead [24,25,26,27], (ii) The idea behind PCA is to decompose a big matrix into the product of several sub-matrices and then retain the first few components which have the maximum amount of variance. Mathematically, this helps to do dimension reduction, noise reduction, but the highest variance may be inappropriate to the biological reality [28, 29].

Fig. 1
figure 1

Automatic analysis framework of oCEM. Gene expression data first underwent the two pre-processing steps: removal of outlier samples and normalization. Then, the user could refer to the recommendation of oCEM regarding which decomposition method should be selected and how many component numbers were optimal by using the function optimizeCOM. Next, the processed data were inputted into the function overlapCEM, rendering co-expressed gene modules (i.e., Signatures with their own kurtosis ≥ 3) and Patterns. Kurtosis statistically describes the “tailedness” of the distribution relative to a normal distribution. Finally, corresponding hub-genes in each module and the association between each module and each clinical feature of choice were identified

Since the output of the decomposition methods generally consisted of two parts, the components for genes and the components for samples, we, in this study, distinguished the two by the term of signatures and patterns, respectively (Additional file 1:Supplementary Methods and Additional file 1:FigureS1). When it comes to the first matrix product (vertical rectangle in Additional file 1:FigureS1), oCEM described the characteristic of different signatures by, between them, a set of genes of which the overlap was allowed. In contrast, for the second matrix product (horizontal rectangle in Additional file 1:FigureS1), oCEM characterized each component by its expression patterns in biological samples.

OptimizeCOM algorithm

The first step of oCEM involved deciding how many principal components should be. To support the user to possibly make a good decision, we developed an R function called optimizeCOM. The idea behind this function was based on random permutations adapted from [30], aimed not only to help the user to know which method should be selected but also to specify the optimal number of principal components to extract by ICA or IPCA (detailed in Additional file 1:Supplementary Methods and Additional file 1:FigureS2).

Keep components with non-Gaussian distribution

oCEM equipped with ICA and IPCA required the distributions of the signatures across genes must be as non-Gaussian as possible; ideally, they should be heavy-tailed normal distributions. Due to this requirement, the kurtosis was recruited, which statistically describes the “tailedness” of the distribution [20], and only kept signatures whose kurtosis value ≥ 3.

Detection of co-expressed gene modules

It was evident that a few genes at the tails of a heavy-tailed distribution would be the most important elements in a particular signature, and conversely, the influence of the majority of genes became weaker and weaker, or even was over, in that signature when they lay at the center of the distribution [20, 21]. Based on this, oCEM provided the users with three optional post-processing steps attached with ICA and IPCA (two for ICA and one for IPCA) to detect co-expressed gene modules.

For the first option of the post-processing step (“ICA-FDR” assigned to the method argument of the function overlapCEM), oCEM did the extraction of non-Gaussian signatures by ICA (the fastICA algorithm was configured using parallel extraction method and the default measure of non-Gaussianity logcosh approximation of negentropy with α  =  1), then the fdrtool R tool [31] modeled those signatures as a two-distribution mixture (null and alternative). The null (Gaussian) distribution was fitted around the median of the signature distribution. At last, a user-defined probability threshold (e.g., 0.1, 0.01, 0.001, …), called tail area-based false discovery rate (FDR), was chosen to distribute genes to modules on the condition that a gene whose FDR lesser than the threshold at a signature was assigned to that signature (module). Here we suggested the selection of the sufficiently stringent threshold of 0.001 if appropriate for robustness.

The second option (“ICA-Zscore” assigned to the method argument of the function overlapCEM) was similar to the first one, but oCEM first did z-score transformation for genes in each signature. A gene belonged to a module if the absolute of its z-score was greater than a user-defined standard deviation threshold (e.g., 0.5 σ,1 σ, 1.5 σ,…). We suggested choosing the sufficiently strict threshold of 3 σ on either side from the zero mean, which picks only out a few genes in the tails of the distributions at any time as possible.

The last option (“IPCA-FDR” assigned to the method argument of the function overlapCEM) was similar to the first one, but here oCEM used IPCA (the ipca algorithm was configured using deflation extraction method and the default measure of non-Gaussianity logcosh approximation of negentropy with α  =  1) instead of ICA. This algorithm was more robust to noise.

Genes at both extremes of the distribution were considered hub-genes. The Pearson’s correlations of each resulting co-expressed module to each clinical feature of interest were then calculated and reported in R.

Performance validation of oCEM

Gene expression data

We used three example data, human breast cancer [32], mouse metabolic syndrome [33], and Escherichia coli (E.coli) [34], to illustrate the straightforward use of oCEM as well as be convenient for comparing its ability with other tools. In particular, the first case study, downloaded from the cBioPortal for Cancer Genomics [35, 36], was the METABRIC breast cancer cohort in the United Kingdom and Canada. The gene expression data were generated using the Illumina Human v3 microarray for 1904 samples. The second case study, related to mouse metabolic syndrome (obesity, insulin resistance, and dyslipidemia), was liver gene expressions from 134 female mice including 3600 physiologically relevant genes. The data were employed by the authors of WGCNA [16] to indicate how to use this tool. Finally, the expression values of 4296 genes from 805 E.coli samples were downloaded from the DREAM5 network inference challenge website.

Comparison of oCEM with WGCNA and its improved version iWGCNA

We used the two expression data above to validate the performance of oCEM with WGCNA and an improved version of WGCNA proposed by us [37], temporarily called improved WGCNA (iWGCNA) in this study. For WGCNA, we applied it to the gene expression data using the blockwiseModules function (v1.69). All tuning parameters were left as default. For iWGCNA, its improvement was that we added an additional step to the gene clustering process, the determination of the optimal cluster agglomeration method for each particular case. All other tuning parameters were set to their default value, except for the selection of the soft-thresholding value [16].

To compare the power of them, we estimated the pairwise Pearson’s correlation coefficients, r, between module eigengenes (MEs, characterized by its first principal component) of resulting modules given by WGCNA (wME) and iWGCNA (iME) versus patterns (i.e., sample components) given by oCEM. This helped us to determine which modules could be missed by WGCNA and iWGCNA. Then, g:Profiler (https://biit.cs.ut.ee/gprofiler/gost) (ver e102_eg49_p15_7a9b4d6; accessed on 20 Feb. 2021) [38] verified biological processes and KEGG pathways related to those missed modules. Biological processes and KEGG pathways with adjusted P-values ≤0.05 (G:SCS multiple testing correction method [38], two-tailed) were considered to be statistically significant. Importantly, as the g:Profiler database did not support to perform the enrichment analysis from a set of genes in E.coli, we decided to use the Gene Ontology (GO) database [39] for the same task instead.

Results

Human breast cancer

In our previous study [37], the breast cancer data were used to detect 31 validated breast-cancer-associated genes, and we then clustered those genes to functional modules using iWGCNA. Here, we revisited the results to be convenient for the comparison. Due to the small number of genes, WGCNA failed to identify any co-expressions across the 1904 breast cancer patients (the 31 genes were in wM0 or called a gray module), while iWGCNA and oCEM indicated two (iM1 and iM2 respective to turquoise and blue modules) and three modules (oM1, oM2, and oM3), respectively. These implied that the ability of iWGCNA and oCEM was better than WGCNA in the co-expressed gene module identification. Figure 2a indicates that oCEM discovered the three co-expressed modules including a corresponding set of genes of which the overlap was allowed. The correlation analyses of the three identified modules were performed automatically by oCEM (Fig. 2b). As a result, oM1 showed a significant negative association with the Nottingham prognostic index only. In particular, oM3 was positively significantly correlated with all three clinical features, including the number of lymph nodes, Nottingham prognostic index, and tumor stages of the breast cancer patients. Besides, oCEM also reported the top 10 hub-genes in each of these modules, including KMT2C, BAP1, PTEN, NF1, RUNX1, ZFP36L1, CDKN1B, BRCA2, MAP3K1, and PIK3CA in oM1; CDH1, PIK3R1, GATA3, CDKN2A, TBX3, SMAD4, KRAS, RB1, MEN1, and RUNX1 in oM2; and KRAS, GPS2, SF3B1, AGTR2, RB1, NCOR1, SMAD4, ERBB3, FOXO3, and NF1 in oM3.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Identification and analysis of functional modules by oCEM. a Venn diagram shows the overlap of the 31 driver genes among the three functional modules (oM1, oM2, and oM3). b Associations of each module with each of three clinical features of interest. Abbreviation: lymph, the number of lymph nodes; npi, Nottingham prognostic index; stage, tumor stages of all the breast cancer patients; oM, resulting modules generated by oCEM

We further investigated the power of the three methods by estimating the pairwise Pearson’s correlation coefficients between the one and two modules given by WGCNA and iWGCNA, respectively, versus the three modules given by oCEM as described in the Methods section below. As expected, one wME (100.0%) and one iME (50.0%) respectively showed r > 0.4 with at least one oCEM pattern (i.e., patient components), whereas only 33.3% of oCEM patterns correlated to at least 1 ME obtained by both WGCNA and iWGCNA with the same intensity (Fig. 3a,b and Additional file 2:TableS1). Collectively, both WGCNA and iWGCNA potentially missed two modules oM2 and oM3 (r < 0.4). We functionally enriched the two and realized that they possessed an overlapping set of genes significantly associated with regulation of gene expression and development processes and biological pathways related to cancer in general and breast cancer in particular (Additional file 2:TableS2), suggesting that oCEM was most likely to identify biologically relevant modules that were not represented by WGCNA or iWGCNA modules.

Fig. 3
figure 3

Comparison of identified modules by oCEM with those by WGCNA and iWGNCA. a the pairwise Pearson’s correlation coefficients were computed between wM0 versus oM1, oM2, and oM3. b the pairwise Pearson’s correlation coefficients were computed between iM1 and iM2 versus oM1, oM2, and oM3. Abbreviation: wM, iM, and oM, resulting modules generated by WGCNA, iWGCNA, and oCEM

Mouse metabolic syndrome

Similarly, we applied the three tools to 2281 gene expressions in the liver of the 134 female mice. As a result, WGCNA, iWGCNA, and oCEM detected 17, 12, and 18 modules, respectively. In this turn, four out of 17 wMEs (23.5%) and four out of 12 iMEs (33.3%) yielded r > 0.8 with at least one oCEM pattern (i.e., mouse components). In contrast, those numbers for oCEM were three out of 18 oCEM patterns (16.7%) and four out of 18 oCEM patterns (22.2%) related to at least one wME and one iME with the same intensity, in which WGCNA and iWGCNA could ignore 15 and 14 important oCEM modules (r < 0.8), respectively (Additional file 2:TableS3). We analyzed enrichment on those missed modules, rendering all of them associated significantly with relevant metabolic processes and pathways. More details of the pre-processing procedures, analysis processes, and comparisons were shown in Additional file 1.

E.coli gene expression compendium

Here we did the same as the two studies above once again for 572 gene expressions in a total of 801 samples. To this end, WGCNA, iWGCNA, and oCEM detected 14, nine, and 24 modules, respectively. In this turn, six out of 14 wMEs (42.9%) and five out of nine iMEs (55.6%) issued r > 0.8 with at least one oCEM pattern. In contrast, those numbers for oCEM were six out of 24 oCEM patterns (25.0%) and four out of 24 oCEM patterns (16.7%) related to at least one wME and one iME with the same intensity, in which WGCNA and iWGCNA could ignore 18 and 20 important oCEM modules (r < 0.8), respectively (Additional file 2:TableS4). We analyzed the biological meaning of the those missed modules, rendering all of them associated significantly with GO terms, which included biological process terms, cellular component terms, and molecular function terms.

Discussions

Co-expressed gene module identification and sample clustering rely mostly on unsupervised clustering methods, resulting in the development of new tools or new analysis frameworks [16, 37, 40, 41]. However, module detection is unique due to the necessity of ensuring biological reality in the context of gene expressions, such as overlap and local co-expression. In this study, we, therefore, have presented a new tool, oCEM, for module discovery; especially, it differentiates from other advanced methods on the ability to identify different modules which allow having the overlap between them, better reflecting biological reality than methods that stratify genes into separate subgroups. The fact that oCEM outperforms some state-of-the-art tools, such as WGCNA or iWGCNA, in identifying functional modules of genes. Moreover, oCEM is sufficiently flexible to be applied to any organisms, like human, mouse, yeast, and so on. In addition, oCEM is well able to automatically and easily do the two tasks as identification and analysis of modules. These clearly help to support a community of the users with diverse backgrounds, such as biologists, bioinformaticians, and bioinformaticists, who are interested in this field.

When using the decomposition methods, the selection of the optimal number of principal components is vital. Here we also introduce optimizeCOM which performs a permutation procedure hoping that the extracted components are generated not-at-random. Based on the three benchmark datasets, including human breast cancer, mouse metabolic syndrome, and E.coli, we can realize that most modules indicated by optimizeCOM are highly similar to those displayed by WGCNA and iWGCNA, whereas the rest of the modules are new ones significantly associated with clinical features as well as biological processes and pathways. Although further studies are required, these results imply that optimizeCOM could provide a suggestion having a high value of reference before using the decomposition methods.

However, we acknowledge that there have still several restrictions of oCEM. Firstly, the input of oCEM is only gene expression matrix. Many prior studies have claimed that integration of multi-omics will enable us to discover molecular mechanisms missed by using each omics technology [40, 42, 43]. For example, as the interpretation of the target expression change is based partly on the change in transcription factor expression [34], this information included may help to improve the ability of module identification. In the future, we will find the way to combine -omics data, possibly including transcription factors, prior to being the input of oCEM. Secondly, each oCEM module consists of many genes, so biologists have difficulty experimentally validating such modules by follow-up wet-lab experiments. This is a common problem of existing coexpression identification methods, including oCEM. We suggest that biologists can select some co-expressed modules of interest possessing well-established co-regulation of genes. Another way is choosing some co-expressed modules associated significantly with clinical features of their interest.

Conclusion

In conclusion, we believe that the oCEM tool may be useful to improve module detection and discover novel biological insights into complex diseases.

Availability of data and materials

R package of oCEM is available under the MIT license on GitHub at (https://github.com/huynguyen250896/oCEM). Alternatively, the users can also download the raw data of breast cancer from the cBioPortal for Cancer Genomics (http://www.cbioportal.org) [35, 36] under the accession number EGAS00000000083, mouse metabolic syndrome from the Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo) under the accession number GSE2814, and E.coli from the DREAM5 network inference challenge website [34] (synapse.org/#!Synapse:syn2787209/wiki/70349) under the identifier syn3130842. Approval by a local ethics committee was not required, all the raw data can be immediately downloaded for research purposes.

Abbreviations

oCEM:

Overlapping CoExpressed gene Module

WGCNA:

Weighted gene co-expression network analysis

iWGCNA:

Improved weighted gene co-expression network analysis

ICA:

Independent component analysis

PCA:

Principal component analysis

IPCA:

Independent principal component analysis

E.coli:

Escherichia coli

GO:

Gene Ontology

References

  1. 1.

    Eisen MB, et al. Cluster analysis and display of genome-wide expression patterns. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 1998;95(25):14863–8.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    D'haeseleer P. How does gene expression clustering work? Nat Biotechnol. 2005;23(12):1499–501.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Chaussabel D, Baldwin N. Democratizing systems immunology with modular transcriptional repertoire analyses. Nat Rev Immunol. 2014;14(4):271–80.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Voineagu I, et al. Transcriptomic analysis of autistic brain reveals convergent molecular pathology. Nature. 2011;474(7351):380–4.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Jostins L, et al. Host–microbe interactions have shaped the genetic architecture of inflammatory bowel disease. Nature. 2012;491(7422):119–24.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Yosef N, et al. Dynamic regulatory network controlling TH 17 cell differentiation. Nature. 2013;496(7446):461–8.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Jojic V, et al. Identification of transcriptional regulators in the mouse immune system. Nat Immunol. 2013;14(6):633–43.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Paul F, et al. Erratum: Transcriptional Heterogeneity and Lineage Commitment in Myeloid Progenitors (Cell (2015) 163 (1663–1677)). Cell. 2016;164:1–2.

    Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Alsina L, et al. A narrow repertoire of transcriptional modules responsive to pyogenic bacteria is impaired in patients carrying loss-of-function mutations in MYD88 or IRAK4. Nat Immunol. 2014;15(12):1134–42.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Chaussabel D, et al. A modular analysis framework for blood genomics studies: application to systemic lupus erythematosus. Immunity. 2008;29(1):150–64.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Arnone MI, Davidson EH. The hardwiring of development: organization and function of genomic regulatory systems. Development. 1997;124(10):1851–64.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Miklos GL, Rubin GM. The role of the genome project in determining gene function: insights from model organisms. Cell. 1996;86(4):521–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Neph S, et al. Circuitry and dynamics of human transcription factor regulatory networks. Cell. 2012;150(6):1274–86.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Rotival M, et al. Integrating genome-wide genetic variations and monocyte expression data reveals trans-regulated gene modules in humans. PLoS Genet. 2011;7(12):e1002367.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Eren K, et al. A comparative analysis of biclustering algorithms for gene expression data. Brief Bioinform. 2013;14(3):279–92.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Langfelder P, Horvath S. WGCNA: an R package for weighted correlation network analysis. BMC Bioinformatics. 2008;9(1):559.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Lance GN, Williams WT. A general theory of classificatory sorting strategies: 1. Hierarchical Systems. Comput J. 1967;9(4):373–80.

    Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Saelens W, Cannoodt R, Saeys Y. A comprehensive evaluation of module detection methods for gene expression data. Nat Commun. 2018;9(1):1090.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Comon P. Independent component analysis, a new concept? Signal Process. 1994;36(3):287–314.

    Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Hyvärinen A, Oja E. Independent component analysis: algorithms and applications. Neural Netw. 2000;13(4–5):411–30.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Liebermeister W. Linear modes of gene expression determined by independent component analysis. Bioinformatics. 2002;18(1):51–60.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Jolliffe IT, Cadima J. Principal component analysis: a review and recent developments. Phil Transact Royal Soc A. 2016;374(2065):20150202.

    Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Yao F, Coquery J, Lê Cao K-A. Independent principal component analysis for biologically meaningful dimension reduction of large biological data sets. BMC Bioinformatics. 2012;13(1):24.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Lee S-I, Batzoglou S. Application of independent component analysis to microarrays. Genome Biol. 2003;4(11):1–21.

    Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Purdom E, Holmes SP. Error distribution for gene expression data. Stat Appl Genet Mol Biol. 2005;4(1):16.

    Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Huang D-S, Zheng C-H. Independent component analysis-based penalized discriminant method for tumor classification using gene expression data. Bioinformatics. 2006;22(15):1855–62.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Engreitz JM, et al. Independent component analysis: mining microarray data for fundamental human gene expression modules. J Biomed Inform. 2010;43(6):932–44.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Scholz M, et al. Metabolite fingerprinting: detecting biological features by independent component analysis. Bioinformatics. 2004;20(15):2447–54.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Yeung KY, Ruzzo WL. Principal component analysis for clustering gene expression data. Bioinformatics. 2001;17(9):763–74.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Horn JL. A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika. 1965;30(2):179–85.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Strimmer K. A unified approach to false discovery rate estimation. BMC bioinformatics. 2008;9(1):1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Pereira B, et al. The somatic mutation profiles of 2,433 breast cancers refine their genomic and transcriptomic landscapes. Nat Commun. 2016;7(1):11479.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Ghazalpour A, et al. Integrating genetic and network analysis to characterize genes related to mouse weight. PLoS Genet. 2006;2(8):e130.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Marbach D, et al. Wisdom of crowds for robust gene network inference. Nat Methods. 2012;9(8):796–804.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Cerami E, et al. The cBio Cancer genomics portal: an open platform for exploring multidimensional Cancer genomics data. Cancer Discov. 2012;2(5):401–4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Gao J, et al. Integrative analysis of complex cancer genomics and clinical profiles using the cBioPortal. Sci Signal. 2013;6(269):pl1.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Nguyen Q-H, Le D-H. Improving existing analysis pipeline to identify and analyze cancer driver genes using multi-omics data. Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):20521.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Raudvere U, et al. g:Profiler: a web server for functional enrichment analysis and conversions of gene lists (2019 update). Nucleic Acids Res. 2019;47(W1):W191–8.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Ashburner M, et al. Gene ontology: tool for the unification of biology. Nat Genet. 2000;25(1):25–9.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Nguyen Q-H, et al. Multi-omics analysis detects novel prognostic subgroups of breast cancer. Front Genet. 2020;11:1265.

    Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Nguyen H, et al. Disease subtyping using community detection from consensus networks. In: 2020 12th International Conference on Knowledge and Systems Engineering (KSE); 2020.

    Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Subramanian I, et al. Multi-omics data integration, interpretation, and its application. Bioinform Biol Insights. 2020;14:1177932219899051.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Shen R, et al. Integrative subtype discovery in Glioblastoma using iCluster. PLoS One. 2012;7(4):e35236.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not Applicable.

Funding

No funding was obtained for this study.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

Conception and design of the study: Q-HN; design and implementation of oCEM: Q-HN; computational analysis and result interpretation: Q-HN; manuscript drafting: Q-HN; review and editing: D-HL; supervision: D-HL; The authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Duc-Hau Le.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

We have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1.

User manual. Tutorial and use examples of oCEM.

Additional file 2. 

Supporting results.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Nguyen, QH., Le, DH. oCEM: Automatic detection and analysis of overlapping co-expressed gene modules. BMC Genomics 23, 39 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12864-021-08072-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12864-021-08072-5

Keywords

  • Identification of modules
  • Analysis of modules
  • Co-expression
  • Clinical feature association
  • Gene expression