ArticleJournal of computational biology : a journal of computational molecular cell biology2015
Disease gene prioritization using network and feature.
Article in Journal of computational biology : a journal of computational molecular cell biology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ranking Plant Network Nodes Based on Their Centrality Measures.Entropy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- WINNER: A network biology tool for biomolecular characterization and prioritization.Frontiers in big data · 2022Article
- Universal concept signature analysis: genome-wide quantification of new biological and pathological functions of genes and pathways.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2020Article
- MGOGP: a gene module-based heuristic algorithm for cancer-related gene prioritization.BMC bioinformatics · 2018Article
- Chemokine expression in the early response to injury in human airway epithelial cells.PloS one · 2018Article
- A large-scale benchmark of gene prioritization methods.Scientific reports · 2017Article
- Lynx: a knowledge base and an analytical workbench for integrative medicine.Nucleic acids research · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Identifying high-confidence candidate genes that are causative for disease phenotypes, from the large lists of variations produced by high-throughput genomics, can be both time-consuming and costly. The development of novel computational approaches, utilizing existing biological knowledge for the prioritization of such candidate genes, can improve the efficiency and accuracy of the biomedical data analysis. It can also reduce the cost of such studies by avoiding experimental validations of irrelevant candidates. In this study, we address this challenge by proposing a novel gene prioritization approach that ranks promising candidate genes that are likely to be involved in a disease or phenotype under study. This algorithm is based on the modified conditional random field (CRF) model that simultaneously makes use of both gene annotations and gene interactions, while preserving their original representation. We validated our approach on two independent disease benchmark studies by ranking candidate genes using network and feature information. Our results showed both high area under the curve (AUC) value (0.86), and more importantly high partial AUC (pAUC) value (0.1296), and revealed higher accuracy and precision at the top predictions as compared with other well-performed gene prioritization tools, such as Endeavour (AUC-0.82, pAUC-0.083) and PINTA (AUC-0.76, pAUC-0.066). We were able to detect more target genes (9/18/19/27) on top positions (1/5/10/20) compared to Endeavour (3/11/14/23) and PINTA (6/10/13/18). To demonstrate its usability, we applied our method to a case study for the prediction of molecular mechanisms contributing to intellectual disability and autism. Our approach was able to correctly recover genes related to both disorders and provide suggestions for possible additional candidates based on their rankings and functional annotations.
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.