Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20508145›Full record

ArticleGenome research2010

A genome-wide map of human genetic interactions inferred from radiation hybrid genotypes.

Andy Lin, Richard T Wang, Sangtae Ahn, Christopher C Park, Desmond J Smith

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genome research, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 48 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
48citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

48 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Current neuropharmacology · 2024
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Polymorphisms inGenes · 2022
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Network Modeling in Biology: Statistical Methods for Gene and Brain Networks.Statistical science : a review journal of the Institute of Mathematical Statistics · 2021
    Article
  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

5 authors.

Andy LinDepartment of Molecular and Medical Pharmacology, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, California 90095, USA.
Richard T Wang
Sangtae Ahn
Christopher C Park
Desmond J Smith

Funding

Training Grant in Genomic Analysis and InterpretationT32HG002536 · NHGRI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI Valerie A Arboleda, Harold Pimentel · 2002 to 2026
$8.6M
NHGRI NIH HHS T32 HG002536
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Using radiation hybrid genotyping data, 99% of all possible gene pairs across the mammalian genome were tested for interactions based on co-retention frequencies higher (attraction) or lower (repulsion) than chance. Gene interaction networks constructed from six independent data sets overlapped strongly. Combining the data sets resulted in a network of more than seven million interactions, almost all attractive. This network overlapped with protein-protein interaction networks on multiple measures and also confirmed the relationship between essentiality and centrality. In contrast to other biological networks, the radiation hybrid network did not show a scale-free distribution of connectivity but was Gaussian-like, suggesting a closer approach to saturation. The radiation hybrid (RH) network constitutes a platform for understanding the systems biology of the mammalian cell.

Indexed as

Gene Regulatory NetworksRadiation Hybrid MappingFemaleGenome, HumanGenome-Wide Association StudyGenotypeHumansMaleProtein Interaction Mapping

Identifiers

PMID20508145
PMCPMC2909575

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.