Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28028815›Full record

ReviewThe Journal of physiology2017

Metabolic systems biology: a brief primer.

Lindsay M Edwards

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The Journal of physiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. 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

1 author.

Lindsay M EdwardsRespiratory Data Sciences Group, GlaxoSmithKline Medicines Research, Stevenage, Hertfordshire, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7776-8235

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the early to mid-20th century, reductionism as a concept in biology was challenged by key thinkers, including Ludwig von Bertalanffy. He proposed that living organisms were specific examples of complex systems and, as such, they should display characteristics including hierarchical organisation and emergent behaviour. Yet the true study of complete biological systems (for example, metabolism) was not possible until technological advances that occurred 60 years later. Technology now exists that permits the measurement of complete levels of the biological hierarchy, for example the genome and transcriptome. The complexity and scale of these data require computational models for their interpretation. The combination of these - systems thinking, high-dimensional data and computation - defines systems biology, typically accompanied by some notion of iterative model refinement. Only sequencing-based technologies, however, offer full coverage. Other 'omics' platforms trade coverage for sensitivity, although the densely connected nature of biological networks suggests that full coverage may not be necessary. Systems biology models are often characterised as either 'bottom-up' (mechanistic) or 'top-down' (statistical). This distinction can mislead, as all models rely on data and all are, to some degree, 'middle-out'. Systems biology has matured as a discipline, and its methods are commonplace in many laboratories. However, many challenges remain, especially those related to large-scale data integration.

Indexed as

AnimalsHumansMetabolomicsPhysiologySystems Biologyhuman physiologymetabolismsystems biology

Identifiers

PMID28028815
PMCPMC5407990

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.