Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2022 May 13;23(3):bbac143.
doi: 10.1093/bib/bbac143.

On the influence of several factors on pathway enrichment analysis

Affiliations
Review

On the influence of several factors on pathway enrichment analysis

Sarah Mubeen et al. Brief Bioinform. .

Abstract

Pathway enrichment analysis has become a widely used knowledge-based approach for the interpretation of biomedical data. Its popularity has led to an explosion of both enrichment methods and pathway databases. While the elegance of pathway enrichment lies in its simplicity, multiple factors can impact the results of such an analysis, which may not be accounted for. Researchers may fail to give influential aspects their due, resorting instead to popular methods and gene set collections, or default settings. Despite ongoing efforts to establish set guidelines, meaningful results are still hampered by a lack of consensus or gold standards around how enrichment analysis should be conducted. Nonetheless, such concerns have prompted a series of benchmark studies specifically focused on evaluating the influence of various factors on pathway enrichment results. In this review, we organize and summarize the findings of these benchmarks to provide a comprehensive overview on the influence of these factors. Our work covers a broad spectrum of factors, spanning from methodological assumptions to those related to prior biological knowledge, such as pathway definitions and database choice. In doing so, we aim to shed light on how these aspects can lead to insignificant, uninteresting or even contradictory results. Finally, we conclude the review by proposing future benchmarks as well as solutions to overcome some of the challenges, which originate from the outlined factors.

Keywords: benchmark; gene set analysis; gene set collection; omics data; pathway database; pathway enrichment.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Illustration of major factors that influence the results of pathway enrichment analysis discussed in this review. The height and color of the bars are symbolic and do not correlate with importance. The two networks depicted above represent two biological pathways mapped to gene expression data (matrix below).

References

    1. Khatri P, Sirota M, Butte AJ. Ten years of pathway analysis: current approaches and outstanding challenges. PLoS Comput Biol 2012;8(2):e1002375. 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002375. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Geistlinger L, Csaba G, Santarelli M, et al. Toward a gold standard for benchmarking gene set enrichment analysis. Brief Bioinform 2020;22(1):545–56. 10.1093/bib/bbz158. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Ihnatova I, Popovici V, Budinska E. A critical comparison of topology-based pathway analysis methods. PLoS One 2018;13(1):e0191154. 10.1371/journal.pone.0191154. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Reimand J, Isserlin R, Voisin V, et al. Pathway enrichment analysis and visualization of omics data using g: Profiler, GSEA, Cytoscape and EnrichmentMap. Nat Protoc 2019;14(2):482–517. 10.1038/s41596-018-0103-9. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Kanehisa M, Furumichi M, Sato Y, et al. KEGG: integrating viruses and cellular organisms. Nucleic Acids Res 2021;49(D1):D545–51. 10.1093/nar/gkaa970. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types