Quantifying Differential Rhythmicity based on Effect Sizes with LimoRhyde2
Obodo, D.; Asiaee, A.
Show abstract
Current methods for assessing differential rhythmicity in genomic data focus on hypothesis testing and model selection, often assuming sinusoidal rhythms. A more appropriate approach is to estimate differences in rhythmic properties between two or more conditions using effect sizes. To address this gap, we extend LimoRhyde2, a method for quantifying rhythm-related effect sizes and their uncertainty in genome-scale data, to enable differential rhythmicity analyses. Through extensive testing, we validate the method for differential rhythmicity analysis and showcase how it improves biological interpretation for circadian systems biology.
Matching journals
The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- ECHO: an Application for Detection and Analysis of Oscillators Identifies Metabolic Regulation on Genome-Wide Circadian Output 96%
- TimeCycle: Topology Inspired MEthod for the Detection of Cycling Transcripts in Circadian Time-Series Data 94%
- Normalized coefficient of variation (nCV): a method to evaluate circadian clock robustness in population scale data 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- TimeTrial: An Interactive Application for Optimizing the Design and Analysis of Transcriptomic Times-Series Data in CircadianBiology Research 97%
- The liver clock tunes transcriptional rhythms in skeletal muscle to regulate mitochondrial function 91%
- dlmoR: An open-source R package for the dim-light melatonin onset (DLMO) hockey-stick method 91%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Model integration of circadian and sleep-wake driven contributions to rhythmic gene expression reveals novel regulatory principles 92%
- Model-X knockoffs reveal data-dependent limits on regulatory network identification 91%
- Guiding the Refinement of Biochemical Knowledgebases with Ensembles of Metabolic Networks and Machine Learning 90%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.