Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27248690›Full record

ArticlePloS one2016

Refining Pathways: A Model Comparison Approach.

Giusi Moffa, Gerrit Erdmann, Oksana Voloshanenko, Christian Hundsrucker, Mohammad J Sadeh, Michael Boutros, Rainer Spang

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 24% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Giusi MoffaDepartment of Statistical Bioinformatics, Institute of Functional Genomics, University of Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany.
Gerrit ErdmannDivision of Signaling and Functional Genomics, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) and Department of Cell and Molecular Biology, Faculty of Medicine Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany.
Oksana VoloshanenkoDivision of Signaling and Functional Genomics, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) and Department of Cell and Molecular Biology, Faculty of Medicine Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany.
Christian HundsruckerDepartment of Statistical Bioinformatics, Institute of Functional Genomics, University of Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany.
Mohammad J SadehDepartment of Statistical Bioinformatics, Institute of Functional Genomics, University of Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany.
Michael BoutrosDivision of Signaling and Functional Genomics, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) and Department of Cell and Molecular Biology, Faculty of Medicine Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany.
Rainer SpangDepartment of Statistical Bioinformatics, Institute of Functional Genomics, University of Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany.
University of Regensburg · DEGerman Cancer Research Center · DEHeidelberg University · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cellular signalling pathways consolidate multiple molecular interactions into working models of signal propagation, amplification, and modulation. They are described and visualized as networks. Adjusting network topologies to experimental data is a key goal of systems biology. While network reconstruction algorithms like nested effects models are well established tools of computational biology, their data requirements can be prohibitive for their practical use. In this paper we suggest focussing on well defined aspects of a pathway and develop the computational tools to do so. We adapt the framework of nested effect models to focus on a specific aspect of activated Wnt signalling in HCT116 colon cancer cells: Does the activation of Wnt target genes depend on the secretion of Wnt ligands or do mutations in the signalling molecule β-catenin make this activation independent from them? We framed this question into two competing classes of models: Models that depend on Wnt ligands secretion versus those that do not. The model classes translate into restrictions of the pathways in the network topology. Wnt dependent models are more flexible than Wnt independent models. Bayes factors are the standard Bayesian tool to compare different models fairly on the data evidence. In our analysis, the Bayes factors depend on the number of potential Wnt signalling target genes included in the models. Stability analysis with respect to this number showed that the data strongly favours Wnt ligands dependent models for all realistic numbers of target genes.

Indexed as

Models, TheoreticalAlgorithmsBayes TheoremCell Line, TumorHumansSignal TransductionWnt ProteinsWnt Proteins

Identifiers

PMID27248690
PMCPMC4889067
OpenAlexW2411120286

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.