ArticlePLoS computational biology2019
Augmenting subnetwork inference with information extracted from the scientific literature.
Article in PLoS computational biology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Many biological studies involve either (i) manipulating some aspect of a cell or its environment and then simultaneously measuring the effect on thousands of genes, or (ii) systematically manipulating each gene and then measuring the effect on some response of interest. A common challenge that arises in these studies is to explain how genes identified as relevant in the given experiment are organized into a subnetwork that accounts for the response of interest. The task of inferring a subnetwork is typically dependent on the information available in publicly available, structured databases, which suffer from incompleteness. However, a wealth of potentially relevant information resides in the scientific literature, such as information about genes associated with certain concepts of interest, as well as interactions that occur among various biological entities. We contend that by exploiting this information, we can improve the explanatory power and accuracy of subnetwork inference in multiple applications. Here we propose and investigate several ways in which information extracted from the scientific literature can be used to augment subnetwork inference. We show that we can use literature-extracted information to (i) augment the set of entities identified as being relevant in a subnetwork inference task, (ii) augment the set of interactions used in the process, and (iii) support targeted browsing of a large inferred subnetwork by identifying entities and interactions that are closely related to concepts of interest. We use this approach to uncover the pathways involved in interactions between a virus and a host cell, and the pathways that are regulated by a transcription factor associated with breast cancer. Our experimental results demonstrate that these approaches can provide more accurate and more interpretable subnetworks. Integer program code, background network data, and pathfinding code are available at https://github.com/Craven-Biostat-Lab/subnetwork_inference.
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.