ArticleBMC bioinformatics2019
FoPA: identifying perturbed signaling pathways in clinical conditions using formal methods.
Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease with high accuracy via Petri net modeling of signaling pathways.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Analysing the meta-interaction between pathways by gene set topological impact analysis.BMC genomics · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAccurate identification of perturbed signaling pathways based on differentially expressed genes between sample groups is one of the key factors in the understanding of diseases and druggable targets. Most pathway analysis methods prioritize impacted signaling pathways by incorporating pathway topology using simple graph-based models. Despite their relative success, these models are limited in describing all types of dependencies and interactions that exist in biological pathways.
resultsIn this work, we propose a new approach based on the formal modeling of signaling pathways. Signaling pathways are formally modeled, and then model checking tools are applied to find the likelihood of perturbation for each pathway in a given condition. By adopting formal methods, various complex interactions among biological parts are modeled, which can contribute to reducing the false-positive rate of the proposed approach. We have developed a tool named Formal model checking based pathway analysis (FoPA) based on this approach. FoPA is compared with three well-known pathway analysis methods: PADOG, CePa, and SPIA on the benchmark of 36 GEO datasets from various diseases by applying the target pathway technique. This validation technique eliminates the need for possibly biased human assessments of results. In the cases that, there is no apriori knowledge of all relevant pathways, simulated false inputs (permuted class labels and decoy pathways) are chosen as a set of negative controls to test the false positive rate of the methods. Finally, to further evaluate the efficiency of FoPA, it is applied to a list of autism-related genes.
conclusionsThe results obtained by the target pathway technique demonstrate that FoPA is able to prioritize target pathways as well as PADOG but better than CePa and SPIA. Also, the false-positive rate of finding significant pathways using FoPA is lower than other compared methods. Also, FoPA can detect more consistent relevant pathways than other methods. The results of FoPA on autism-related genes highlight the role of "Renin-angiotensin system" pathway. This pathway has been supposed to have a pivotal role in some neurodegenerative diseases, while little attention has been paid to its impact on autism development so far.
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.