Frontiers in NeuroscienceNeurosciencePeer-reviewed journal article
Towards establishing internal validity for correlated gene expression measures in imaging genomics of functional networks: why distance corrections and external face validity alone fall short. Reply to "Distance is not everything in imaging genomics of functional networks: reply to a commentary on Correlated gene expression supports synchronous activity in brain networks"
Abstract
The primary claim of the Richiardi et. al. 2015 Science article1 is that a measure of correlated gene expression, significant strength fraction (SSF), is related to resting state fMRI (rsfMRI) networks. However, there is still debate about this claim and whether spatial proximity, in the form of contiguous clusters, accounts entirely, or only partially, for SSF2,3. Here, thirteen distributed networks were simulated by combining 34 contiguous clusters randomly placed throughout cortex, with resulting edge distance distributions similar to rsfMRI networks. Cluster size was modulated (6-15mm radius) to test its influence on SSF false positive rate (SSF-FPR) among the simulated noise networks. The contribution of rsfMRI networks on SSF-FPR was examined by comparing simulations using: 1) all cortical samples 2) all samples with non-rsfMRI cluster centers and 3) only non-rsfMRI samples. Results show that SSF-FPR is influenced only by cluster size (r>0.9, p<0.001), not by rsfMRI samples. Simulations using 14mm radius clusters most resembled rsfMRI networks. When thresholding at p<10-4, the SSF-FPR was 0.47. Genes that maximize SF have high global spatial autocorrelation. In conclusion, SSF is unrelated to rsfMRI networks. The main conclusion of Richiardi et. al. 2015 is based on a finding that is [~]50% likely to be a false positive, not less than 0.01% as originally reported in the article1. We discuss why distance corrections alone and external face validity are insufficient to establish a trustworthy relationship between correlated gene expression measures and rsfMRI networks, and propose more rigorous approaches to preclude common pitfalls in related studies.
- Citations
- 2
- FWCI
- 0.27
- Field percentile
- top 50%
Reproducibility ledger
Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.
Sign in to file a reproducibility report.
Related papers
- Commentary: BRAIN NETWORKS. Correlated gene expression supports synchronous activity in brain networks. Science 348, 1241-4.
Spiro P. Pantazatos, Xinyi Li·Frontiers in NeurosciencePeer-reviewed·Jul 18, 2017
- Distance Is Not Everything In Imaging Genomics Of Functional Networks: Reply To A Commentary On Correlated Gene Expression Supports Synchronous Activity In Brain Networks
Jonas Richiardi, André Altmann, Michael D. Greicius·bioRxiv·May 1, 2017
- Correspondence between resting state activity and brain gene expression
Guang-Zhong Wang, T. Grant Belgard, … Genevieve Konopka·NeuronPeer-reviewed·Nov 1, 2015
- Graph theory approaches to functional network organization in brain disorders: A critique for a brave new small-world
Michael N. Hallquist, Frank Gerard Hillary·Network NeurosciencePeer-reviewed·Apr 12, 2018
- Functional connectivity networks with and without global signal correction
Satoru Hayasaka·bioRxiv·Dec 19, 2013
- Effective Degrees of Freedom of the Pearson’s Correlation Coefficient under Autocorrelation
Soroosh Afyouni, Stephen M. Smith, Thomas E. Nichols·NeuroImagePeer-reviewed·May 31, 2019