ArticleBioinformatics (Oxford, England)2018
Comparative Network Reconstruction using mixed integer programming.
Article in Bioinformatics (Oxford, England), 2018. 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, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cell-State-Specific Drug Responses are Associated With Differences in Signaling Network Wiring.Molecular & cellular proteomics : MCP · 2026Article
- Reconstructing and comparing signal transduction networks from single-cell protein quantification data.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2026Article
- Testing and overcoming the limitations of modular response analysis.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2025Article
- Identifying mutant-specific multi-drug combinations using comparative network reconstruction.iScience · 2022Article
- An R package for generic modular response analysis and its application to estrogen and retinoic acid receptor crosstalk.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Towards a cancer mission in Horizon Europe: recommendations.Molecular oncology · 2020Article
- Identifiability and experimental design in perturbation studies.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2020Article
- 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
8 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Motivation: Signal-transduction networks are often aberrated in cancer cells, and new anti-cancer drugs that specifically target oncogenes involved in signaling show great clinical promise. However, the effectiveness of such targeted treatments is often hampered by innate or acquired resistance due to feedbacks, crosstalks or network adaptations in response to drug treatment. A quantitative understanding of these signaling networks and how they differ between cells with different oncogenic mutations or between sensitive and resistant cells can help in addressing this problem. Results: Here, we present Comparative Network Reconstruction (CNR), a computational method to reconstruct signaling networks based on possibly incomplete perturbation data, and to identify which edges differ quantitatively between two or more signaling networks. Prior knowledge about network topology is not required but can straightforwardly be incorporated. We extensively tested our approach using simulated data and applied it to perturbation data from a BRAF mutant, PTPN11 KO cell line that developed resistance to BRAF inhibition. Comparing the reconstructed networks of sensitive and resistant cells suggests that the resistance mechanism involves re-establishing wild-type MAPK signaling, possibly through an alternative RAF-isoform. Availability and implementation: CNR is available as a python module at https://github.com/NKI-CCB/cnr. Additionally, code to reproduce all figures is available at https://github.com/NKI-CCB/CNR-analyses. Supplementary information: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.
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.