Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30555503›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in plant science2018

Statistical and Machine Learning Approaches to Predict Gene Regulatory Networks From Transcriptome Datasets.

Keiichi Mochida, Satoru Koda, Komaki Inoue, Ryuei Nishii

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in plant science, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

37 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

4 authors.

Keiichi MochidaBioproductivity Informatics Research Team, RIKEN Center for Sustainable Resource Science, Yokohama, Japan.
Satoru KodaGraduate School of Mathematics, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan.
Komaki InoueBioproductivity Informatics Research Team, RIKEN Center for Sustainable Resource Science, Yokohama, Japan.
Ryuei NishiiInstitute of Mathematics for Industry, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Statistical and machine learning (ML)-based methods have recently advanced in construction of gene regulatory network (GRNs) based on high-throughput biological datasets. GRNs underlie almost all cellular phenomena; hence, comprehensive GRN maps are essential tools to elucidate gene function, thereby facilitating the identification and prioritization of candidate genes for functional analysis. High-throughput gene expression datasets have yielded various statistical and ML-based algorithms to infer causal relationship between genes and decipher GRNs. This review summarizes the recent advancements in the computational inference of GRNs, based on large-scale transcriptome sequencing datasets of model plants and crops. We highlight strategies to select contextual genes for GRN inference, and statistical and ML-based methods for inferring GRNs based on transcriptome datasets from plants. Furthermore, we discuss the challenges and opportunities for the elucidation of GRNs based on large-scale datasets obtained from emerging transcriptomic applications, such as from population-scale, single-cell level, and life-course transcriptome analyses.

Indexed as

gene regulatory networkmachine learningsparse modelingtime series analysistranscriptome

Identifiers

PMID30555503
PMCPMC6281826

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.