ArticleJournal of biomedical semantics2014
The influence of disease categories on gene candidate predictions from model organism phenotypes.
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.
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.
- Contribution of model organism phenotypes to the computational identification of human disease genes.Disease models & mechanisms · 2022Article
- Representing glycophenotypes: semantic unification of glycobiology resources for disease discovery.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2019Review
- Next-generation diagnostics and disease-gene discovery with the Exomiser.Nature protocols · 2015Article
- Disease insights through cross-species phenotype comparisons.Mammalian genome : official journal of the International Mammalian Genome Society · 2015Review
- Precision medicine: Look to the mice.Science (New York, N.Y.) · 2015Article
- Phenotype-driven strategies for exome prioritization of human Mendelian disease genes.Genome medicine · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
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
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.