Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25093073›Full record

ArticleJournal of biomedical semantics2014

The influence of disease categories on gene candidate predictions from model organism phenotypes.

Anika Oellrich, Sebastian Koehler, Nicole Washington, Sanger Mouse Genetic Project, Chris Mungall, Suzanna Lewis, Melissa Haendel, Peter N Robinson, Damian Smedley

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of biomedical semantics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Representing glycophenotypes: semantic unification of glycobiology resources for disease discovery.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2019
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Disease insights through cross-species phenotype comparisons.Mammalian genome : official journal of the International Mammalian Genome Society · 2015
    Review
  5. Precision medicine: Look to the mice.Science (New York, N.Y.) · 2015
    Article
  6. Review
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

9 authors.

Anika OellrichWellcome Trust Sanger Institute, Wellcome Trust Genome Campus, CB10 1SA Hinxton, UK.
Sebastian KoehlerInstitute for Medical Genetics and Human Genetics, Universitaetsklinikum Charite, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353 Berlin, Germany.
Nicole WashingtonBerkeley Bioinformatics Open-Source Projects, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 1 Cyclotron Road, CA 94720 Berkeley, USA.
Sanger Mouse Genetic Project
Chris MungallWellcome Trust Sanger Institute, Wellcome Trust Genome Campus, CB10 1SA Hinxton, UK.
Suzanna LewisBerkeley Bioinformatics Open-Source Projects, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 1 Cyclotron Road, CA 94720 Berkeley, USA.
Melissa HaendelOntology Development Group, OHSU Library, Oregon Health & Science University, 3181 S.W. Sam Jackson Park Rd, OR 97239 Portland, USA.
Peter N RobinsonInstitute for Medical Genetics and Human Genetics, Universitaetsklinikum Charite, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353 Berlin, Germany.
Damian SmedleyWellcome Trust Sanger Institute, Wellcome Trust Genome Campus, CB10 1SA Hinxton, UK.

Funding

The Monarch Initiative: Linking Diseases to Model Organism ResourcesR24OD011883 · OD · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI HAENDEL, MELISSA A, MUNGALL, CHRISTOPHER J · 2012 to 2024
$16.0M
NIH HHS R24 OD011883
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe molecular etiology is still to be identified for about half of the currently described Mendelian diseases in humans, thereby hindering efforts to find treatments or preventive measures. Advances, such as new sequencing technologies, have led to increasing amounts of data becoming available with which to address the problem of identifying disease genes. Therefore, automated methods are needed that reliably predict disease gene candidates based on available data. We have recently developed Exomiser as a tool for identifying causative variants from exome analysis results by filtering and prioritising using a number of criteria including the phenotype similarity between the disease and mouse mutants involving the gene candidates. Initial investigations revealed a variation in performance for different medical categories of disease, due in part to a varying contribution of the phenotype scoring component.

resultsIn this study, we further analyse the performance of our cross-species phenotype matching algorithm, and examine in more detail the reasons why disease gene filtering based on phenotype data works better for certain disease categories than others. We found that in addition to misleading phenotype alignments between species, some disease categories are still more amenable to automated predictions than others, and that this often ties in with community perceptions on how well the organism works as model.

conclusionsIn conclusion, our automated disease gene candidate predictions are highly dependent on the organism used for the predictions and the disease category being studied. Future work on computational disease gene prediction using phenotype data would benefit from methods that take into account the disease category and the source of model organism data.

Identifiers

PMID25093073
PMCPMC4108905

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.