Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19422680›Full record

ArticleBMC systems biology2009

Comparative analysis of module-based versus direct methods for reverse-engineering transcriptional regulatory networks.

Tom Michoel, Riet De Smet, Anagha Joshi, Yves Van de Peer, Kathleen Marchal

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC systems biology, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing 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

36 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Systematic Tracking of Disrupted Modules Identifies Altered Pathways Associated with Congenital Heart Defects in Down Syndrome.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2015
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Bugs in the system.Immunological reviews · 2013
    Review
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

5 authors.

Tom MichoelDepartment of Plant Systems Biology, VIB, Technologiepark 927, B-9052 Gent, Belgium. tom.michoel@psb.vib-ugent.be
Riet De Smet
Anagha Joshi
Yves Van de Peer
Kathleen Marchal

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA myriad of methods to reverse-engineer transcriptional regulatory networks have been developed in recent years. Direct methods directly reconstruct a network of pairwise regulatory interactions while module-based methods predict a set of regulators for modules of coexpressed genes treated as a single unit. To date, there has been no systematic comparison of the relative strengths and weaknesses of both types of methods.

resultsWe have compared a recently developed module-based algorithm, LeMoNe (Learning Module Networks), to a mutual information based direct algorithm, CLR (Context Likelihood of Relatedness), using benchmark expression data and databases of known transcriptional regulatory interactions for Escherichia coli and Saccharomyces cerevisiae. A global comparison using recall versus precision curves hides the topologically distinct nature of the inferred networks and is not informative about the specific subtasks for which each method is most suited. Analysis of the degree distributions and a regulator specific comparison show that CLR is 'regulator-centric', making true predictions for a higher number of regulators, while LeMoNe is 'target-centric', recovering a higher number of known targets for fewer regulators, with limited overlap in the predicted interactions between both methods. Detailed biological examples in E. coli and S. cerevisiae are used to illustrate these differences and to prove that each method is able to infer parts of the network where the other fails. Biological validation of the inferred networks cautions against over-interpreting recall and precision values computed using incomplete reference networks.

conclusionOur results indicate that module-based and direct methods retrieve largely distinct parts of the underlying transcriptional regulatory networks. The choice of algorithm should therefore be based on the particular biological problem of interest and not on global metrics which cannot be transferred between organisms. The development of sound statistical methods for integrating the predictions of different reverse-engineering strategies emerges as an important challenge for future research.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsGene Regulatory NetworksTranscription, GeneticCell MembraneCell RespirationChemotaxisComputational BiologyEscherichia coliFatty AcidsFlagellaGene Expression ProfilingMembrane LipidsMethionineNitrogenReproducibility of ResultsSaccharomyces cerevisiaeFatty AcidsMembrane LipidsMethionineNitrogen

Identifiers

PMID19422680
PMCPMC2684101

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.