ArticleBMC systems biology2013
Consensus and conflict cards for metabolic pathway databases.
Article in BMC systems biology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Efficient Reconstruction of Predictive Consensus Metabolic Network Models.PLoS computational biology · 2016Article
- Prediction of drugs having opposite effects on disease genes in a directed network.BMC systems biology · 2016Article
- Taking Bioinformatics to Systems Medicine.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2016Review
- Many InChIs and quite some feat.Journal of computer-aided molecular design · 2015Article
- Context-based resolution of semantic conflicts in biological pathways.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2015Article
- Computational strategies for a system-level understanding of metabolism.Metabolites · 2014Review
- A curated C. difficile strain 630 metabolic network: prediction of essential targets and inhibitors.BMC systems biology · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe metabolic network of H. sapiens and many other organisms is described in multiple pathway databases. The level of agreement between these descriptions, however, has proven to be low. We can use these different descriptions to our advantage by identifying conflicting information and combining their knowledge into a single, more accurate, and more complete description. This task is, however, far from trivial.
resultsWe introduce the concept of Consensus and Conflict Cards (C₂Cards) to provide concise overviews of what the databases do or do not agree on. Each card is centered at a single gene, EC number or reaction. These three complementary perspectives make it possible to distinguish disagreements on the underlying biology of a metabolic process from differences that can be explained by different decisions on how and in what detail to represent knowledge. As a proof-of-concept, we implemented C₂Cards(Human), as a web application http://www.molgenis.org/c2cards, covering five human pathway databases.
conclusionsC₂Cards can contribute to ongoing reconciliation efforts by simplifying the identification of consensus and conflicts between pathway databases and lowering the threshold for experts to contribute. Several case studies illustrate the potential of the C₂Cards in identifying disagreements on the underlying biology of a metabolic process. The overviews may also point out controversial biological knowledge that should be subject of further research. Finally, the examples provided emphasize the importance of manual curation and the need for a broad community involvement.
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.