ArticleBioinformatics (Oxford, England)2014
Experimental design schemes for learning Boolean network models.
Article in Bioinformatics (Oxford, England), 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Control-guided refinement of partially specified Boolean networks: applications to RTK signaling.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2026Article
- Accelerated knowledge discovery from omics data by optimal experimental design.Nature communications · 2020Article
- Determining Relative Dynamic Stability of Cell States Using Boolean Network Model.Scientific reports · 2018Article
- CrossPlan: systematic planning of genetic crosses to validate mathematical models.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2018Article
- Discrete Dynamical Modeling of Influenza Virus Infection Suggests Age-Dependent Differences in Immunity.Journal of virology · 2017Article
- A review of active learning approaches to experimental design for uncovering biological networks.PLoS computational biology · 2017Review
- Active Interaction Mapping Reveals the Hierarchical Organization of Autophagy.Molecular cell · 2017Article
- Designing Experiments to Discriminate Families of Logic Models.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
motivationA holy grail of biological research is a working model of the cell. Current modeling frameworks, especially in the protein-protein interaction domain, are mostly topological in nature, calling for stronger and more expressive network models. One promising alternative is logic-based or Boolean network modeling, which was successfully applied to model signaling regulatory circuits in human. Learning such models requires observing the system under a sufficient number of different conditions. To date, the amount of measured data is the main bottleneck in learning informative Boolean models, underscoring the need for efficient experimental design strategies.
resultsWe developed novel design approaches that greedily select an experiment to be performed so as to maximize the difference or the entropy in the results it induces with respect to current best-fit models. Unique to our maximum difference approach is the ability to account for all (possibly exponential number of) Boolean models displaying high fit to the available data. We applied both approaches to simulated and real data from the EFGR and IL1 signaling systems in human. We demonstrate the utility of the developed strategies in substantially improving on a random selection approach. Our design schemes highlight the redundancy in these datasets, leading up to 11-fold savings in the number of experiments to be performed. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: Source code will be made available upon acceptance of the manuscript.
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.