Differential coexpression in human tissues and the confounding effect of mean expression levels
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Motivation: Differential coexpression-the alteration of gene coexpression patterns observed in different biological conditions-has been proposed to be a mechanism for revealing rewiring of transcription regulatory networks. Despite wide use of methods for differential coexpression analysis, the phenomenon has not been well-studied. In particular, in many applications, differential coexpression is confounded with differential expression, that is, changes in average levels of expression across conditions. This confounding, despite affecting the interpretation of the differential coexpression, has rarely been studied. Results: We constructed high-quality coexpression networks for five human tissues and identified coexpression links (gene pairs) that were specific to each tissue. Between 3 and 32% of coexpression links were tissue-specific (differentially coexpressed) and this specificity is reproducible in an external dataset. However, we show that up to 75% of the observed differential coexpression is substantially explained by average expression levels of the genes. 'Pure' differential coexpression independent from differential expression is a minority and is less reproducible in external datasets. We also investigated the functional relevance of pure differential coexpression. Our conclusion is that to a large extent, differential coexpression is more parsimoniously explained by changes in average expression levels and pure links have little impact on network-based functional analysis. Supplementary information: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".