Personal tools

Coexpression cluster:C2467


Revision as of 05:24, 21 May 2012 by Autoedit (talk | contribs)
Jump to: navigation, search

Full id: C2467_Olfactory_Fibroblast_Hair_alveolar_glioblastoma_Preadipocyte_Ewing

Phase1 CAGE Peaks

  Short description
Hg19::chr18:56246745..56246774,- p11@ALPK2
Hg19::chr18:56246785..56246806,- p1@ALPK2
Hg19::chr18:56246814..56246824,- p26@ALPK2
Hg19::chr18:56246825..56246890,- p5@ALPK2

Enriched pathways on this co-expression clusterSummary:
Canonical pathway gene sets were compiled from Reactome, Wikipathways and KEGG. For the major signaling pathways, the transcriptionally-regulated genes (downstream targets) were obtained from Netpath. Combined, the canonical pathways and downstream targets totaled 489 human gene sets. The corresponding M. musculus gene sets were inferred by homology using the HomoloGene database. Enrichment for each of the canonical 489 pathways and gene sets included in the co-expression cluster was assessed by the hypergeometric probability. The resulting P values were also then adjusted by the Benjamini-Hochberg method for multiple comparisons.
Analyst: Emmanuel Dimont

link to source dataset

No results for this coexpression

Enriched Gene Ontology terms on this co-expression clusterSummary: Results for GOStat analysis on co-expressed clusters. Each cluster with promoters mapping to at least two different genes was analysed with GOStat (PMID: 14962934) with default parameter.
Analyst: Erik Arner

link to source dataset

No GOStat results

Enriched sample ontology terms on this co-expression clusterSummary:To summarize promoter activities (expression profile of a TSS region) across ~1000 samples, we performed enrichment analysis based on FANTOM5 Sample Ontology (FF ontology). The question here is “in which type of samples the promoter is more active”. To answer this question, we compared expressions (TPMs) in the samples associated with a sample ontology term and the rest of the samples by using the Mann-Whitney rank sum test. To summarize ontologies enriched in this co-expression cluster, we ran the same analysis on an averaged expression profile of all promoters that make up. Analyst: Hideya Kawaji

links to source dataset


Cell Type
Ontology termp-valuen
non-terminally differentiated cell1.14e-23180
animal cell3.48e-10679
eukaryotic cell3.48e-10679
skin fibroblast6.16e-1023
mesothelial cell3.27e-0819
stromal cell4.22e-0827
multi fate stem cell7.52e-08430
somatic stem cell4.49e-07436
Uber Anatomy
Ontology termp-valuen
trunk mesenchyme2.40e-07143
paraxial mesoderm2.72e-0783
presomitic mesoderm2.72e-0783
presumptive segmental plate2.72e-0783
trunk paraxial mesoderm2.72e-0783
presumptive paraxial mesoderm2.72e-0783
connective tissue3.22e-07375
integumental system7.71e-0745
skin of body7.84e-0740

Overrepresented TFBS (DNA) motifs on this co-expression clusterSummary:The values shown are the p-values for overrepresentation of the motif in this coexpression cluster. So a small p-value means a strong overrepresentation. Analyst: Michiel de Hoon

link to source data
Novel motifs

Jaspar motifs

Novel motifs

JASPAR motifs



ENCODE TF ChIP-seq peak enrichment analysisSummary: For each TF and each co-expression cluster, the number of promoters with ENCODE TF ChIP signal was compared with the rest of promoters from the robust set using Fisher's exact test. Clusters with significant ChIP enrichment (q <= 0.05) after Benjamini-Hochberg correction were retained.
Analyst: Erik Arner

link to source dataset


No analysis results for this cluster

Relative expression of the co-expression clusterSummary:Co-expression clusters are compared against FANTOM5 samples to obtain relative expression.

link to data source

This analysis result is provided for C0 - C305 clusters.