ArticlePloS one2016
Graphlet Based Metrics for the Comparison of Gene Regulatory Networks.
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 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.
- Unveiling hidden connections in omics data via pyPARAGON: an integrative hybrid approach for disease network construction.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2024Article
- Transcriptional and Histone Acetylation Changes Associated with CRE Elements Expose Key Factors Governing the Regulatory Circuit in the Early Stage of Huntington's Disease Models.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Article
- Article
- Automated generation of context-specific gene regulatory networks with a weighted approach inInterface focus · 2021Article
- Article
- Pleione: A tool for statistical and multi-objective calibration of Rule-based models.Scientific reports · 2019Article
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Understanding the control of gene expression remains one of the main challenges in the post-genomic era. Accordingly, a plethora of methods exists to identify variations in gene expression levels. These variations underlay almost all relevant biological phenomena, including disease and adaptation to environmental conditions. However, computational tools to identify how regulation changes are scarce. Regulation of gene expression is usually depicted in the form of a gene regulatory network (GRN). Structural changes in a GRN over time and conditions represent variations in the regulation of gene expression. Like other biological networks, GRNs are composed of basic building blocks called graphlets. As a consequence, two new metrics based on graphlets are proposed in this work: REConstruction Rate (REC) and REC Graphlet Degree (RGD). REC determines the rate of graphlet similarity between different states of a network and RGD identifies the subset of nodes with the highest topological variation. In other words, RGD discerns how th GRN was rewired. REC and RGD were used to compare the local structure of nodes in condition-specific GRNs obtained from gene expression data of Escherichia coli, forming biofilms and cultured in suspension. According to our results, most of the network local structure remains unaltered in the two compared conditions. Nevertheless, changes reported by RGD necessarily imply that a different cohort of regulators (i.e. transcription factors (TFs)) appear on the scene, shedding light on how the regulation of gene expression occurs when E. coli transits from suspension to biofilm. Consequently, we propose that both metrics REC and RGD should be adopted as a quantitative approach to conduct differential analyses of GRNs. A tool that implements both metrics is available as an on-line web server (http://dlab.cl/loto).
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.