Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30376562›Full record

ArticlePLoS computational biology2018

Predicting bioprocess targets of chemical compounds through integration of chemical-genetic and genetic interactions.

Scott W Simpkins, Justin Nelson, Raamesh Deshpande, Sheena C Li, Jeff S Piotrowski, Erin H Wilson, Abraham A Gebre, Hamid Safizadeh, Reika Okamoto, Mami Yoshimura and 7 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS computational biology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

17 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Scott W SimpkinsUniversity of Minnesota-Twin Cities, Bioinformatics and Computational Biology Graduate Program, Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-5997-2838
Justin NelsonUniversity of Minnesota-Twin Cities, Bioinformatics and Computational Biology Graduate Program, Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States of America.
Raamesh DeshpandeUniversity of Minnesota-Twin Cities, Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States of America.
Sheena C LiRIKEN Center for Sustainable Resource Science, Wako, Saitama, Japan.
Jeff S PiotrowskiRIKEN Center for Sustainable Resource Science, Wako, Saitama, Japan.
Erin H WilsonUniversity of Minnesota-Twin Cities, Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States of America.
Abraham A GebreUniversity of Tokyo, Department of Integrated Biosciences, Graduate School of Frontier Sciences, Kashiwa, Chiba, Japan.
Hamid SafizadehUniversity of Minnesota-Twin Cities, Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States of America.
Reika OkamotoRIKEN Center for Sustainable Resource Science, Wako, Saitama, Japan.
Mami YoshimuraRIKEN Center for Sustainable Resource Science, Wako, Saitama, Japan.
Michael CostanzoUniversity of Toronto, Donnelly Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Yoko YashirodaRIKEN Center for Sustainable Resource Science, Wako, Saitama, Japan.
Yoshikazu OhyaUniversity of Tokyo, Department of Integrated Biosciences, Graduate School of Frontier Sciences, Kashiwa, Chiba, Japan.ORCID 0000-0003-0837-1239
Hiroyuki OsadaRIKEN Center for Sustainable Resource Science, Wako, Saitama, Japan.
Minoru YoshidaRIKEN Center for Sustainable Resource Science, Wako, Saitama, Japan.ORCID 0000-0002-4376-5674
Charles BooneRIKEN Center for Sustainable Resource Science, Wako, Saitama, Japan.
Chad L MyersUniversity of Minnesota-Twin Cities, Bioinformatics and Computational Biology Graduate Program, Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States of America.
RIKEN Center for Sustainable Resource Science · JPUniversity of Minnesota · USThe University of Tokyo · JPUniversity of Toronto · CA

Funding

TRAINING FOR FUTURE BIOTECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENTT32GM008347 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA TWIN CITIES · PI SCHMIDT-DANNERT, CLAUDIA · 1990 to 2021
$11.0M
Methods for large-scale analysis of chemical-genetic interactionsR01HG005084 · NHGRI · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA · PI MYERS, CHAD L · 2010 to 2022
$2.9M
Sparse Structural Equation Models for Gene Networks and Chemical GenomicsR01GM104975 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI CORAL GABLES · PI CAI, XIAODONG · 2012 to 2016
$1.8M
NHGRI NIH HHS R01 HG005084NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM104975NIGMS NIH HHS T32 GM008347
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Chemical-genetic interactions-observed when the treatment of mutant cells with chemical compounds reveals unexpected phenotypes-contain rich functional information linking compounds to their cellular modes of action. To systematically identify these interactions, an array of mutants is challenged with a compound and monitored for fitness defects, generating a chemical-genetic interaction profile that provides a quantitative, unbiased description of the cellular function(s) perturbed by the compound. Genetic interactions, obtained from genome-wide double-mutant screens, provide a key for interpreting the functional information contained in chemical-genetic interaction profiles. Despite the utility of this approach, integrative analyses of genetic and chemical-genetic interaction networks have not been systematically evaluated. We developed a method, called CG-TARGET (Chemical Genetic Translation via A Reference Genetic nETwork), that integrates large-scale chemical-genetic interaction screening data with a genetic interaction network to predict the biological processes perturbed by compounds. In a recent publication, we applied CG-TARGET to a screen of nearly 14,000 chemical compounds in Saccharomyces cerevisiae, integrating this dataset with the global S. cerevisiae genetic interaction network to prioritize over 1500 compounds with high-confidence biological process predictions for further study. We present here a formal description and rigorous benchmarking of the CG-TARGET method, showing that, compared to alternative enrichment-based approaches, it achieves similar or better accuracy while substantially improving the ability to control the false discovery rate of biological process predictions. Additional investigation of the compatibility of chemical-genetic and genetic interaction profiles revealed that one-third of observed chemical-genetic interactions contributed to the highest-confidence biological process predictions and that negative chemical-genetic interactions overwhelmingly formed the basis of these predictions. We also present experimental validations of CG-TARGET-predicted tubulin polymerization and cell cycle progression inhibitors. Our approach successfully demonstrates the use of genetic interaction networks in the high-throughput functional annotation of compounds to biological processes.

Indexed as

Cell CycleGene Regulatory NetworksSmall Molecule LibrariesColchicineDrug DiscoveryProtein MultimerizationReproducibility of ResultsSystems BiologyTubulinTubulin ModulatorsYeastsColchicineSmall Molecule LibrariesTubulinTubulin Modulators

Identifiers

PMID30376562
PMCPMC6226211
OpenAlexW2899126350

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.