ArticleBioinformatics (Oxford, England)2015
A crowd-sourcing approach for the construction of species-specific cell signaling networks.
Article in Bioinformatics (Oxford, England), 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Crowdsourced benchmarking of taxonomic metagenome profilers: lessons learned from the sbv IMPROVER Microbiomics challenge.BMC genomics · 2022Article
- The sbv IMPROVER Systems Toxicology Computational Challenge: Identification of Human and Species-Independent Blood Response Markers as Predictors of Smoking Exposure and Cessation Status.Computational toxicology (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2018Article
- Crowd sourcing difficult problems in protein scienceProtein science : a publication of the Protein Society · 2017Review
- Crowdsourcing and curation: perspectives from biology and natural language processing.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2016Article
- Modeling signal transduction from protein phosphorylation to gene expression.Cancer informatics · 2014Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
motivationAnimal models are important tools in drug discovery and for understanding human biology in general. However, many drugs that initially show promising results in rodents fail in later stages of clinical trials. Understanding the commonalities and differences between human and rat cell signaling networks can lead to better experimental designs, improved allocation of resources and ultimately better drugs.
resultsThe sbv IMPROVER Species-Specific Network Inference challenge was designed to use the power of the crowds to build two species-specific cell signaling networks given phosphoproteomics, transcriptomics and cytokine data generated from NHBE and NRBE cells exposed to various stimuli. A common literature-inspired reference network with 220 nodes and 501 edges was also provided as prior knowledge from which challenge participants could add or remove edges but not nodes. Such a large network inference challenge not based on synthetic simulations but on real data presented unique difficulties in scoring and interpreting the results. Because any prior knowledge about the networks was already provided to the participants for reference, novel ways for scoring and aggregating the results were developed. Two human and rat consensus networks were obtained by combining all the inferred networks. Further analysis showed that major signaling pathways were conserved between the two species with only isolated components diverging, as in the case of ribosomal S6 kinase RPS6KA1. Overall, the consensus between inferred edges was relatively high with the exception of the downstream targets of transcription factors, which seemed more difficult to predict. CONTACT: ebilal@us.ibm.com or gustavo@us.ibm.com. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.
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.