IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0133579.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Optimal Threshold Determination for Interpreting Semantic Similarity and Particularity: Application to the Comparison of Gene Sets and Metabolic Pathways Using GO and ChEBI

Author

Listed:
  • Charles Bettembourg
  • Christian Diot
  • Olivier Dameron

Abstract

Background: The analysis of gene annotations referencing back to Gene Ontology plays an important role in the interpretation of high-throughput experiments results. This analysis typically involves semantic similarity and particularity measures that quantify the importance of the Gene Ontology annotations. However, there is currently no sound method supporting the interpretation of the similarity and particularity values in order to determine whether two genes are similar or whether one gene has some significant particular function. Interpretation is frequently based either on an implicit threshold, or an arbitrary one (typically 0.5). Here we investigate a method for determining thresholds supporting the interpretation of the results of a semantic comparison. Results: We propose a method for determining the optimal similarity threshold by minimizing the proportions of false-positive and false-negative similarity matches. We compared the distributions of the similarity values of pairs of similar genes and pairs of non-similar genes. These comparisons were performed separately for all three branches of the Gene Ontology. In all situations, we found overlap between the similar and the non-similar distributions, indicating that some similar genes had a similarity value lower than the similarity value of some non-similar genes. We then extend this method to the semantic particularity measure and to a similarity measure applied to the ChEBI ontology. Thresholds were evaluated over the whole HomoloGene database. For each group of homologous genes, we computed all the similarity and particularity values between pairs of genes. Finally, we focused on the PPAR multigene family to show that the similarity and particularity patterns obtained with our thresholds were better at discriminating orthologs and paralogs than those obtained using default thresholds. Conclusion: We developed a method for determining optimal semantic similarity and particularity thresholds. We applied this method on the GO and ChEBI ontologies. Qualitative analysis using the thresholds on the PPAR multigene family yielded biologically-relevant patterns.

Suggested Citation

  • Charles Bettembourg & Christian Diot & Olivier Dameron, 2015. "Optimal Threshold Determination for Interpreting Semantic Similarity and Particularity: Application to the Comparison of Gene Sets and Metabolic Pathways Using GO and ChEBI," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(7), pages 1-30, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0133579
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0133579
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0133579
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0133579&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0133579?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Graeme D. Ruxton, 2006. "The unequal variance t-test is an underused alternative to Student's t-test and the Mann--Whitney U test," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 17(4), pages 688-690, July.
    2. Catia Pesquita & Daniel Faria & André O Falcão & Phillip Lord & Francisco M Couto, 2009. "Semantic Similarity in Biomedical Ontologies," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(7), pages 1-12, July.
    3. Xiaomei Wu & Erli Pang & Kui Lin & Zhen-Ming Pei, 2013. "Improving the Measurement of Semantic Similarity between Gene Ontology Terms and Gene Products: Insights from an Edge- and IC-Based Hybrid Method," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(5), pages 1-11, May.
    4. Charles Bettembourg & Christian Diot & Olivier Dameron, 2014. "Semantic Particularity Measure for Functional Characterization of Gene Sets Using Gene Ontology," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(1), pages 1-11, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Gaston K Mazandu & Nicola J Mulder, 2014. "Information Content-Based Gene Ontology Functional Similarity Measures: Which One to Use for a Given Biological Data Type?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(12), pages 1-20, December.
    2. Tamar Balgiashvili, 2017. "Comparing Entrepreneurial Passion of Social and Commercial Entrepreneurs in the Czech Republic," Central European Business Review, Prague University of Economics and Business, vol. 2017(4), pages 45-61.
    3. repec:plo:pcbi00:1003815 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Isaías Martín-Ruiz & María-José Robles-Sánchez & Agustín Wallace, 2024. "Influence of Educational Measures on Emotional Adjustment in Students with and without Specific Learning Difficulties according to Gender," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-18, September.
    5. Sugato Chakravarty & S. M. Zahid Iqbal & Abu Zafar M. Shahriar, 2013. "Are Women “Naturally” Better Credit Risks in Microcredit? Evidence from Field Experiments in Patriarchal and Matrilineal Societies in Bangladesh," Working Papers 1019, Purdue University, Department of Consumer Sciences.
    6. Kanchan Jha & Sriparna Saha & Pratik Dutta, 2024. "Incorporation of gene ontology in identification of protein interactions from biomedical corpus: a multi-modal approach," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 339(3), pages 1793-1811, August.
    7. Thorsten Hens & Trine Nordlie, 2024. "How good are LLMs in risk profiling?," KIER Working Papers 1103, Kyoto University, Institute of Economic Research.
    8. Dongmin Bang & Sangsoo Lim & Sangseon Lee & Sun Kim, 2023. "Biomedical knowledge graph learning for drug repurposing by extending guilt-by-association to multiple layers," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-17, December.
    9. Nithya Shankar-Krishnan & Albert Fornieles Deu & David Sánchez-Carracedo, 2021. "Associations Between Food Insecurity And Psychological Wellbeing, Body Image, Disordered Eating And Dietary Habits: Evidence From Spanish Adolescents," Child Indicators Research, Springer;The International Society of Child Indicators (ISCI), vol. 14(1), pages 163-183, February.
    10. Peng Wang & Shangwei Ning & Qianghu Wang & Ronghong Li & Jingrun Ye & Zuxianglan Zhao & Yan Li & Teng Huang & Xia Li, 2013. "mirTarPri: Improved Prioritization of MicroRNA Targets through Incorporation of Functional Genomics Data," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(1), pages 1-12, January.
    11. Dissanayake, Sunanda & Shams, Alireza, . "Safety Evaluation of Shoulder Bypass Lanes at Unsignalized Intersections on Rural Two-Lane Roadways Using Cross Sectional Analysis," Journal of the Transportation Research Forum, Transportation Research Forum, vol. 55(3).
    12. Marie Christine Fahr & Maximilian Förster & Lars Moestue & Julia Brasse & Julia Klier & Mathias Klier, 2025. "Improving the use of public e-services through explainability," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 95(4), pages 553-586, May.
    13. Stock-Homburg, Ruth, 2024. "Survey of Emotions in Human–Robot Interactions: Perspectives from Robotic Psychology on 20 Years of Research," Publications of Darmstadt Technical University, Institute for Business Studies (BWL) 149448, Darmstadt Technical University, Department of Business Administration, Economics and Law, Institute for Business Studies (BWL).
    14. Tom Narock & Lina Zhou & Victoria Yoon, 2013. "Semantic similarity of ontology instances using polarity mining," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(2), pages 416-427, February.
    15. Xiaomei Wu & Erli Pang & Kui Lin & Zhen-Ming Pei, 2013. "Improving the Measurement of Semantic Similarity between Gene Ontology Terms and Gene Products: Insights from an Edge- and IC-Based Hybrid Method," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(5), pages 1-11, May.
    16. Vlaeminck, Pieter & Vandoren, Jana & Vranken, Liesbet, 2014. "Are labels delivering what they intend? Explicit value of fair-trade labels versus implicit value of fair trade characteristics," 2014 International Congress, August 26-29, 2014, Ljubljana, Slovenia 182941, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    17. Jinxiu Liu & Weihao Shen & Yaqian He, 2021. "Effects of Cropland Expansion on Temperature Extremes in Western India from 1982 to 2015," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-17, May.
    18. McKendall, Sherron Benson & McKendall, Alan & Chester, Ann, 2023. "The development and validation of an academic, work health sciences, and community intentions scale for out-of-school-time (OST) participants," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    19. Yi-An Chen & Lokesh P Tripathi & Benoit H Dessailly & Johan Nyström-Persson & Shandar Ahmad & Kenji Mizuguchi, 2014. "Integrated Pathway Clusters with Coherent Biological Themes for Target Prioritisation," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(6), pages 1-11, June.
    20. Menusch Khadjavi & Andreas Lange, 2015. "Doing good or doing harm: experimental evidence on giving and taking in public good games," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 18(3), pages 432-441, September.
    21. Zhengnan Zhu & Zhe Zhang & Fangqing Liu & Zewei Chen & Yuxin Ren & Qingfu Guo, 2023. "Study on Accuracy Evaluation of MCD19A2 and Spatiotemporal Distribution of AOD in Arid Zones of Central Asia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(18), pages 1-16, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0133579. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.