ArticleBioinformatics (Oxford, England)2018
Branch-recombinant Gaussian processes for analysis of perturbations in biological time series.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Gene-level alignment of single-cell trajectories.Nature methods · 2025Article
- TRANSPIRE: A Computational Pipeline to Elucidate Intracellular Protein Movements from Spatial Proteomics Data Sets.Journal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry · 2020Article
- Bayesian statistical learning for big data biology.Biophysical reviews · 2019Review
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.
Funding
Abstract
Motivation: A common class of behaviour encountered in the biological sciences involves branching and recombination. During branching, a statistical process bifurcates resulting in two or more potentially correlated processes that may undergo further branching; the contrary is true during recombination, where two or more statistical processes converge. A key objective is to identify the time of this bifurcation (branch or recombination time) from time series measurements, e.g. by comparing a control time series with perturbed time series. Gaussian processes (GPs) represent an ideal framework for such analysis, allowing for nonlinear regression that includes a rigorous treatment of uncertainty. Currently, however, GP models only exist for two-branch systems. Here, we highlight how arbitrarily complex branching processes can be built using the correct composition of covariance functions within a GP framework, thus outlining a general framework for the treatment of branching and recombination in the form of branch-recombinant Gaussian processes (B-RGPs). Results: We first benchmark the performance of B-RGPs compared to a variety of existing regression approaches, and demonstrate robustness to model misspecification. B-RGPs are then used to investigate the branching patterns of Arabidopsis thaliana gene expression following inoculation with the hemibotrophic bacteria, Pseudomonas syringae DC3000, and a disarmed mutant strain, hrpA. By grouping genes according to the number of branches, we could naturally separate out genes involved in basal immune response from those subverted by the virulent strain, and show enrichment for targets of pathogen protein effectors. Finally, we identify two early branching genes WRKY11 and WRKY17, and show that genes that branched at similar times to WRKY11/17 were enriched for W-box binding motifs, and overrepresented for genes differentially expressed in WRKY11/17 knockouts, suggesting that branch time could be used for identifying direct and indirect binding targets of key transcription factors. Availability and implementation: https://github.com/cap76/BranchingGPs. 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.