Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19300515›Full record

ArticlePLoS computational biology2009

Directing experimental biology: a case study in mitochondrial biogenesis.

Matthew A Hibbs, Chad L Myers, Curtis Huttenhower, David C Hess, Kai Li, Amy A Caudy, Olga G Troyanskaya

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS computational biology, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed
–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

26 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. NewG3 (Bethesda, Md.) · 2019
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Accurate evaluation and analysis of functional genomics data and methods.Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences · 2012
    Article
  15. Chapter 2: Data-driven view of disease biology.PLoS computational biology · 2012
    Article
  16. Article
  17. A parallel algorithm for reverse engineering of biological networks.Integrative biology : quantitative biosciences from nano to macro · 2011
    Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

7 authors.

Matthew A HibbsLewis-Sigler Institute for Integrative Genomics, Princeton University, Carl Icahn Laboratory, Princeton, New Jersey, United States of America.
Chad L Myers
Curtis Huttenhower
David C Hess
Kai Li
Amy A Caudy
Olga G Troyanskaya

Funding

Spatial Patterning During DevelopmentP50GM071508 · NIGMS · PRINCETON UNIVERSITY · PI POWELL, SUSAN M · 2004 to 2013
$30.6M
Quantitavie and Computational Biology Graduate ProgramT32HG003284 · NHGRI · PRINCETON UNIVERSITY · PI Joshua Michael Akey, Stanislav Y. Shvartsman · 2004 to 2026
$9.9M
lntegration and Visualization of Diverse Biological DataR01GM071966 · NIGMS · PRINCETON UNIVERSITY · PI TROYANSKAYA, OLGA G · 2005 to 2022
$6.4M
NHGRI NIH HHS T32 HG003284NIGMS NIH HHS P50 GM071508NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM071966
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Computational approaches have promised to organize collections of functional genomics data into testable predictions of gene and protein involvement in biological processes and pathways. However, few such predictions have been experimentally validated on a large scale, leaving many bioinformatic methods unproven and underutilized in the biology community. Further, it remains unclear what biological concerns should be taken into account when using computational methods to drive real-world experimental efforts. To investigate these concerns and to establish the utility of computational predictions of gene function, we experimentally tested hundreds of predictions generated from an ensemble of three complementary methods for the process of mitochondrial organization and biogenesis in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. The biological data with respect to the mitochondria are presented in a companion manuscript published in PLoS Genetics (doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1000407). Here we analyze and explore the results of this study that are broadly applicable for computationalists applying gene function prediction techniques, including a new experimental comparison with 48 genes representing the genomic background. Our study leads to several conclusions that are important to consider when driving laboratory investigations using computational prediction approaches. While most genes in yeast are already known to participate in at least one biological process, we confirm that genes with known functions can still be strong candidates for annotation of additional gene functions. We find that different analysis techniques and different underlying data can both greatly affect the types of functional predictions produced by computational methods. This diversity allows an ensemble of techniques to substantially broaden the biological scope and breadth of predictions. We also find that performing prediction and validation steps iteratively allows us to more completely characterize a biological area of interest. While this study focused on a specific functional area in yeast, many of these observations may be useful in the contexts of other processes and organisms.

Indexed as

Models, BiologicalResearch DesignBiologyComputer SimulationMitochondriaMitochondrial ProteinsSaccharomyces cerevisiaeSaccharomyces cerevisiae ProteinsSignal TransductionMitochondrial ProteinsSaccharomyces cerevisiae Proteins

Identifiers

PMID19300515
PMCPMC2654405

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.