Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25631319›Full record

ArticleGenetics2015

Bayesian network reconstruction using systems genetics data: comparison of MCMC methods.

Shinya Tasaki, Ben Sauerwine, Bruce Hoff, Hiroyoshi Toyoshiba, Chris Gaiteri, Elias Chaibub Neto

Open access · bronzeAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Genetics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
5.4field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Synthetic data generation with probabilistic Bayesian Networks.Mathematical biosciences and engineering : MBE · 2021
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. New Algorithm and Software (BNOmics) for Inferring and Visualizing Bayesian Networks from Heterogeneous Big Biological and Genetic Data.Journal of computational biology : a journal of computational molecular cell biology · 2017
    Article
  12. 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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Shinya TasakiIntegrated Technology Research Laboratory, Pharmaceutical Research Division, Takeda Pharmaceutical Company, Fujisawa, Kanagawa, Japan 251-8555 stasaki@gmail.com elias.chaibub.neto@sagebase.org gaiteri@gmail.com.
Ben SauerwineGoogle, Seattle, Washington 98103.
Bruce HoffSage Bionetworks, Seattle, Washington 98109.
Hiroyoshi ToyoshibaIntegrated Technology Research Laboratory, Pharmaceutical Research Division, Takeda Pharmaceutical Company, Fujisawa, Kanagawa, Japan 251-8555.
Chris GaiteriSage Bionetworks, Seattle, Washington 98109 Modeling, Analysis, and Theory Group, Allen Institute for Brain Science, Seattle, Washington 98103 Rush Alzheimer's Disease Center, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois 60612 stasaki@gmail.com elias.chaibub.neto@sagebase.org gaiteri@gmail.com.
Elias Chaibub NetoSage Bionetworks, Seattle, Washington 98109 stasaki@gmail.com elias.chaibub.neto@sagebase.org gaiteri@gmail.com.
Sage Bionetworks · USTakeda (Japan) · JPGoogle (United States) · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Reconstructing biological networks using high-throughput technologies has the potential to produce condition-specific interactomes. But are these reconstructed networks a reliable source of biological interactions? Do some network inference methods offer dramatically improved performance on certain types of networks? To facilitate the use of network inference methods in systems biology, we report a large-scale simulation study comparing the ability of Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) samplers to reverse engineer Bayesian networks. The MCMC samplers we investigated included foundational and state-of-the-art Metropolis-Hastings and Gibbs sampling approaches, as well as novel samplers we have designed. To enable a comprehensive comparison, we simulated gene expression and genetics data from known network structures under a range of biologically plausible scenarios. We examine the overall quality of network inference via different methods, as well as how their performance is affected by network characteristics. Our simulations reveal that network size, edge density, and strength of gene-to-gene signaling are major parameters that differentiate the performance of various samplers. Specifically, more recent samplers including our novel methods outperform traditional samplers for highly interconnected large networks with strong gene-to-gene signaling. Our newly developed samplers show comparable or superior performance to the top existing methods. Moreover, this performance gain is strongest in networks with biologically oriented topology, which indicates that our novel samplers are suitable for inferring biological networks. The performance of MCMC samplers in this simulation framework can guide the choice of methods for network reconstruction using systems genetics data.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsGene Regulatory NetworksModels, GeneticBayes TheoremMarkov ChainsMonte Carlo MethodBayesian networkscausal inferenceeSNPsMCMC methodsnetwork reconstruction

Identifiers

PMID25631319
PMCPMC4391572
OpenAlexW2161113890

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.