ArticleBioinformatics (Oxford, England)2020
Identifiability and experimental design in perturbation studies.
Article in Bioinformatics (Oxford, England), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Probing transcription factor subsets in gene regulatory networks.Algorithms for molecular biology : AMB · 2026Article
- Gene regulatory networks in disease and ageing.Nature reviews. Nephrology · 2024Review
- scPerturb: harmonized single-cell perturbation data.Nature methods · 2024Article
- Doxorubicin-Loaded Multivesicular Liposomes (DepoFoam) as a Sustained Release Carrier Intended for Locoregional Delivery in Cancer Treatment: Development, Characterization, and Cytotoxicity Evaluation.Iranian journal of pharmaceutical research : IJPR · 2022Article
- Network inference from perturbation time course data.NPJ systems biology and applications · 2022Article
- Potentials of single-cell genomics in deciphering cellular phenotypes.Current opinion in plant biology · 2021Review
- Identifying the combinatorial control of signal-dependent transcription factors.PLoS computational biology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
motivationA common strategy to infer and quantify interactions between components of a biological system is to deduce them from the network's response to targeted perturbations. Such perturbation experiments are often challenging and costly. Therefore, optimizing the experimental design is essential to achieve a meaningful characterization of biological networks. However, it remains difficult to predict which combination of perturbations allows to infer specific interaction strengths in a given network topology. Yet, such a description of identifiability is necessary to select perturbations that maximize the number of inferable parameters.
resultsWe show analytically that the identifiability of network parameters can be determined by an intuitive maximum-flow problem. Furthermore, we used the theory of matroids to describe identifiability relationships between sets of parameters in order to build identifiable effective network models. Collectively, these results allowed to device strategies for an optimal design of the perturbation experiments. We benchmarked these strategies on a database of human pathways. Remarkably, full network identifiability was achieved, on average, with less than a third of the perturbations that are needed in a random experimental design. Moreover, we determined perturbation combinations that additionally decreased experimental effort compared to single-target perturbations. In summary, we provide a framework that allows to infer a maximal number of interaction strengths with a minimal number of perturbation experiments. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: IdentiFlow is available at github.com/GrossTor/IdentiFlow. 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.