Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25374613›Full record

ArticleBMC proceedings2014

Identifying common components across biological network graphs using a bipartite data model.

Ej Baker, C Culpepper, C Philips, J Bubier, M Langston, Ej Chesler

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC proceedings, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. GeneWeaver: finding consilience in heterogeneous cross-species functional genomics data.Mammalian genome : official journal of the International Mammalian Genome Society · 2015
    Article
  2. 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

6 authors.

Ej BakerDepartment of Computer Science, Baylor University, Waco, TX, USA.
C CulpepperDepartment of Computer Science, Baylor University, Waco, TX, USA.
C PhilipsDepartment of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, USA.
J BubierDepartment of Bioinformatics and Computational Biology, The Jackson Laboratory, Bar Harbor, ME, USA.
M LangstonDepartment of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, USA.
Ej CheslerDepartment of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, USA.

Funding

Shared Resource ManagementP30CA034196 · NCI · JACKSON LABORATORY · PI William Carl Skarnes · 1985 to 2026
$61.9M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA034196
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The GeneWeaver bipartite data model provides an efficient means to evaluate shared molecular components from sets derived across diverse species, disease states and biological processes. In order to adapt this model for examining related molecular components and biological networks, such as pathway or gene network data, we have developed a means to leverage the bipartite data structure to extract and analyze shared edges. Using the Pathway Commons database we demonstrate the ability to rapidly identify shared connected components among a diverse set of pathways. In addition, we illustrate how results from maximal bipartite discovery can be decomposed into hierarchical relationships, allowing shared pathway components to be mapped through various parent-child relationships to help visualization and discovery of emergent kernel driven relationships. Interrogating common relationships among biological networks and conventional GeneWeaver gene lists will increase functional specificity and reliability of the shared biological components. This approach enables self-organization of biological processes through shared biological networks.

Identifiers

PMID25374613
PMCPMC4202189

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.