Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23946492›Full record

ArticleBriefings in bioinformatics2014

Extracting reaction networks from databases-opening Pandora's box.

Liam G Fearnley, Melissa J Davis, Mark A Ragan, Lars K Nielsen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Briefings in bioinformatics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Signaling hypergraphs.Trends in biotechnology · 2014
    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

4 authors.

Liam G Fearnley
Melissa J Davis
Mark A Ragan
Lars K Nielsen

Funding

A Resource for Biomedical Ontologies and Knowledge BasesP41LM007885 · NLM · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI MUSEN, MARK A · 2003 to 2010
$6.4M
NLM NIH HHS P41 LM007885
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Large quantities of information describing the mechanisms of biological pathways continue to be collected in publicly available databases. At the same time, experiments have increased in scale, and biologists increasingly use pathways defined in online databases to interpret the results of experiments and generate hypotheses. Emerging computational techniques that exploit the rich biological information captured in reaction systems require formal standardized descriptions of pathways to extract these reaction networks and avoid the alternative: time-consuming and largely manual literature-based network reconstruction. Here, we systematically evaluate the effects of commonly used knowledge representations on the seemingly simple task of extracting a reaction network describing signal transduction from a pathway database. We show that this process is in fact surprisingly difficult, and the pathway representations adopted by various knowledge bases have dramatic consequences for reaction network extraction, connectivity, capture of pathway crosstalk and in the modelling of cell-cell interactions. Researchers constructing computational models built from automatically extracted reaction networks must therefore consider the issues we outline in this review to maximize the value of existing pathway knowledge.

Indexed as

Models, BiologicalSignal TransductionCell CommunicationComputational BiologyDatabases, FactualHumansKnowledge BasesMAP Kinase Signaling SystemSystems Biologydatabasesmodellingreaction networkssignal transduction

Identifiers

PMID23946492
PMCPMC4239801

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.