ArticleCell systems2016
Cross-Disciplinary Network Comparison: Matchmaking Between Hairballs.
Article in Cell systems, 2016. 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.
- A rice protein interaction network reveals high centrality nodes and candidate pathogen effector targets.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2022Article
- Context-aware synthetic biology by controller design: Engineering the mammalian cell.Cell systems · 2021Review
- Dynamic changes in gene-to-gene regulatory networks in response to SARS-CoV-2 infection.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- CANTARE: finding and visualizing network-based multi-omic predictive models.BMC bioinformatics · 2021Article
- System-Based Differential Gene Network Analysis for Characterizing a Sample-Specific Subnetwork.Biomolecules · 2020Article
- ManiNetCluster: a novel manifold learning approach to reveal the functional links between gene networks.BMC genomics · 2019Article
- Network biology discovers pathogen contact points in host protein-protein interactomes.Nature communications · 2018Article
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
Biological systems are complex. In particular, the interactions between molecular components often form dense networks that, more often than not, are criticized for being inscrutable 'hairballs'. We argue that one way of untangling these hairballs is through cross-disciplinary network comparison-leveraging advances in other disciplines to obtain new biological insights. In some cases, such comparisons enable the direct transfer of mathematical formalism between disciplines, precisely describing the abstract associations between entities and allowing us to apply a variety of sophisticated formalisms to biology. In cases where the detailed structure of the network does not permit the transfer of complete formalisms between disciplines, comparison of mechanistic interactions in systems for which we have significant day-to-day experience can provide analogies for interpreting relatively more abstruse biological networks. Here, we illustrate how these comparisons benefit the field with a few specific examples related to network growth, organizational hierarchies, and the evolution of adaptive systems.
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.