Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16611749›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical genetics2006

Predicting disease genes using protein-protein interactions.

M Oti, B Snel, M A Huynen, H G Brunner

Abstract readLetter
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical genetics, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 245 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
245citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

245 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

185 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

M Oti
B Snel
M A Huynen
H G Brunner

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe responsible genes have not yet been identified for many genetically mapped disease loci. Physically interacting proteins tend to be involved in the same cellular process, and mutations in their genes may lead to similar disease phenotypes.

objectiveTo investigate whether protein-protein interactions can predict genes for genetically heterogeneous diseases.

methods72,940 protein-protein interactions between 10,894 human proteins were used to search 432 loci for candidate disease genes representing 383 genetically heterogeneous hereditary diseases. For each disease, the protein interaction partners of its known causative genes were compared with the disease associated loci lacking identified causative genes. Interaction partners located within such loci were considered candidate disease gene predictions. Prediction accuracy was tested using a benchmark set of known disease genes.

resultsAlmost 300 candidate disease gene predictions were made. Some of these have since been confirmed. On average, 10% or more are expected to be genuine disease genes, representing a 10-fold enrichment compared with positional information only. Examples of interesting candidates are AKAP6 for arrythmogenic right ventricular dysplasia 3 and SYN3 for familial partial epilepsy with variable foci.

conclusionsExploiting protein-protein interactions can greatly increase the likelihood of finding positional candidate disease genes. When applied on a large scale they can lead to novel candidate gene predictions.

Indexed as

DiseaseAnimalsBenchmarkingDatabases, ProteinGenetic Predisposition to DiseaseHumansProtein BindingProteinsProteins

Identifiers

PMID16611749
PMCPMC2564594

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.