Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32549913›Full record

ArticleBioData mining2020

Revisiting the use of graph centrality models in biological pathway analysis.

Pourya Naderi Yeganeh, Chrsitine Richardson, Erik Saule, Ann Loraine, M Taghi Mostafavi

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BioData mining, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 31% of its field
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. WayFindR: investigating feedback in biological pathways.NAR genomics and bioinformatics · 2026
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Journal of biosciences · 2022
    Review
  8. Review
  9. Opportunities at the Interface of Network Science and Metabolic Modeling.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2020
    Review
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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Pourya Naderi YeganehBeth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, 330 Brookline Ave., Boston, 02215 MA USA.
Chrsitine RichardsonDepartment of Biological Sciences, The University of North Carolina at Charlotte, 9201 University City Blvd, Charlotte, 28223 NC USA.
Erik SauleDepartment of Computer Science, The University of North Carolina at Charlotte, 9201 University City Blvd, Charlotte, 28223 NC USA.
Ann LoraineDepartment of Bioinformatics and Genomics, The University of North Carolina at Charlotte, 9201 University City Blvd, Charlotte, 28223 NC USA.
M Taghi MostafaviDepartment of Computer Science, The University of North Carolina at Charlotte, 9201 University City Blvd, Charlotte, 28223 NC USA.ORCID 0000-0002-0024-4131
University of North Carolina at Charlotte · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The use of graph theory models is widespread in biological pathway analyses as it is often desired to evaluate the position of genes and proteins in their interaction networks of the biological systems. In this article, we argue that the common standard graph centrality measures do not sufficiently capture the informative topological organizations of the pathways, and thus, limit the biological inference. While key pathway elements may appear both upstream and downstream in pathways, standard directed graph centralities attribute significant topological importance to the upstream elements and evaluate the downstream elements as having no importance.We present a directed graph framework, Source/Sink Centrality (SSC), to address the limitations of standard models. SSC separately measures the importance of a node in the upstream and the downstream of a pathway, as a sender and a receiver of biological signals, and combines the two terms for evaluating the centrality. To validate SSC, we evaluate the topological position of known human cancer genes and mouse lethal genes in their respective KEGG annotated pathways and show that SSC-derived centralities provide an effective framework for associating higher positional importance to the genes with higher importance from a priori knowledge. While the presented work challenges some of the modeling assumptions in the common pathway analyses, it provides a straight-forward methodology to extend the existing models. The SSC extensions can result in more informative topological description of pathways, and thus, more informative biological inference.

Indexed as

Biological networksNetwork analysisPathway analysis

Identifiers

PMID32549913
PMCPMC7296696
OpenAlexW3034605745

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.