ArticlePloS one2012
Process-driven inference of biological network structure: feasibility, minimality, and multiplicity.
Article in PloS one, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Boolean Models of Biological Processes Explain Cascade-Like Behavior.Scientific reports · 2016Article
- An Algorithm for Finding the Singleton Attractors and Pre-Images in Strong-Inhibition Boolean Networks.PloS one · 2016Article
- Using Sub-Network Combinations to Scale Up an Enumeration Method for Determining the Network Structures of Biological Functions.PloS one · 2016Article
- Functional association networks as priors for gene regulatory network inference.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2014Article
- Network class superposition analyses.PloS one · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A common problem in molecular biology is to use experimental data, such as microarray data, to infer knowledge about the structure of interactions between important molecules in subsystems of the cell. By approximating the state of each molecule as "on" or "off", it becomes possible to simplify the problem, and exploit the tools of boolean analysis for such inference. Amongst boolean techniques, the process-driven approach has shown promise in being able to identify putative network structures, as well as stability and modularity properties. This paper examines the process-driven approach more formally, and makes four contributions about the computational complexity of the inference problem, under the "dominant inhibition" assumption of molecular interactions. The first is a proof that the feasibility problem (does there exist a network that explains the data?) can be solved in polynomial-time. Second, the minimality problem (what is the smallest network that explains the data?) is shown to be NP-hard, and therefore unlikely to result in a polynomial-time algorithm. Third, a simple polynomial-time heuristic is shown to produce near-minimal solutions, as demonstrated by simulation. Fourth, the theoretical framework explains how multiplicity (the number of network solutions to realize a given biological process), which can take exponential-time to compute, can instead be accurately estimated by a fast, polynomial-time heuristic.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.