ReviewAdvances in experimental medicine and biology2012
Comparative interaction networks: bridging genotype to phenotype.
Review in Advances in experimental medicine and biology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- A global genetic interaction network by single-cell imaging and machine learning.Cell systems · 2023Article
- Gradients in gene essentiality reshape antibacterial research.FEMS microbiology reviews · 2022Review
- Testing the Domino Theory of Gene Loss inLife (Basel, Switzerland) · 2018Article
- The BioGRID interaction database: 2015 update.Nucleic acids research · 2015Article
- Predicting the virulence of MRSA from its genome sequence.Genome research · 2014Article
- Beyond GWAS in COPD: probing the landscape between gene-set associations, genome-wide associations and protein-protein interaction networks.Human heredity · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Over the past decade, biomedical research has witnessed an exponential increase in the throughput of the characterization of biological systems. Here we review the recent progress in large-scale methods to determine protein-protein, genetic and chemical-genetic interaction networks. We discuss some of the limitations and advantages of the different methods and give examples of how these networks are being used to study the evolutionary process. Comparative studies have revealed that different types of protein-protein interactions diverge at different rates with high conservation of co-complex membership but rapid divergence of more promiscuous interactions like those that mediate post-translational modifications. These evolutionary trends have consistent genetic consequences with highly conserved epistatic interactions within complex subunits but faster divergence of epistatic interactions across complexes or pathways. Finally, we discuss how these evolutionary observations are being used to interpret cross-species chemical-genetic studies and how they might shape therapeutic strategies. Together, these interaction networks offer us an unprecedented level of detail into how genotypes are translated to phenotypes, and we envision that they will be increasingly useful in the interpretation of genetic and phenotypic variation occurring within populations as well as the rational design of combinatorial therapeutics.
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.