ArticlePacific Symposium on Biocomputing. Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing2018
Coalitional game theory as a promising approach to identify candidate autism genes.
Article in Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing. Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Enhancing Omics Analyses Through Coalitional Games and Shapley Values.Methods and protocols · 2026Article
- Game theoretic centrality: a novel approach to prioritize disease candidate genes by combining biological networks with the Shapley value.BMC bioinformatics · 2020Article
- Coalitional Game Theory Facilitates Identification of Non-Coding Variants Associated With Autism.Biomedical informatics insights · 2019Article
- PRECISION MEDICINE: FROM DIPLOTYPES TO DISPARITIES TOWARDS IMPROVED HEALTH AND THERAPIES.Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing. Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Despite mounting evidence for the strong role of genetics in the phenotypic manifestation of Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), the specific genes responsible for the variable forms of ASD remain undefined. ASD may be best explained by a combinatorial genetic model with varying epistatic interactions across many small effect mutations. Coalitional or cooperative game theory is a technique that studies the combined effects of groups of players, known as coalitions, seeking to identify players who tend to improve the performance--the relationship to a specific disease phenotype--of any coalition they join. This method has been previously shown to boost biologically informative signal in gene expression data but to-date has not been applied to the search for cooperative mutations among putative ASD genes. We describe our approach to highlight genes relevant to ASD using coalitional game theory on alteration data of 1,965 fully sequenced genomes from 756 multiplex families. Alterations were encoded into binary matrices for ASD (case) and unaffected (control) samples, indicating likely gene-disrupting, inherited mutations in altered genes. To determine individual gene contributions given an ASD phenotype, a "player" metric, referred to as the Shapley value, was calculated for each gene in the case and control cohorts. Sixty seven genes were found to have significantly elevated player scores and likely represent significant contributors to the genetic coordination underlying ASD. Using network and cross-study analysis, we found that these genes are involved in biological pathways known to be affected in the autism cases and that a subset directly interact with several genes known to have strong associations to autism. These findings suggest that coalitional game theory can be applied to large-scale genomic data to identify hidden yet influential players in complex polygenic disorders such as autism.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29218903PMC6055932What 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.