ArticleFrontiers in molecular biosciences2021
Performance Assessment of the Network Reconstruction Approaches on Various Interactomes.
Article in Frontiers in molecular biosciences, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Framework for Benchmarking Pathway Reconstruction Algorithms.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Extracellular matrix-driven patient stratification and network modeling reveal distinct molecular grades with potential clinical implications.NPJ systems biology and applications · 2026Article
- Decoding non-coding SNPs: systems genomics modelling dissects the heterogeneity of IBD.Molecular systems biology · 2026Article
- Discovering anticancer drug target combinations via network-informed signaling-based approach.Communications medicine · 2025Article
- Unveiling hidden connections in omics data via pyPARAGON: an integrative hybrid approach for disease network construction.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2024Article
- From time-series transcriptomics to gene regulatory networks: A review on inference methods.PLoS computational biology · 2023Review
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
Beyond the list of molecules, there is a necessity to collectively consider multiple sets of omic data and to reconstruct the connections between the molecules. Especially, pathway reconstruction is crucial to understanding disease biology because abnormal cellular signaling may be pathological. The main challenge is how to integrate the data together in an accurate way. In this study, we aim to comparatively analyze the performance of a set of network reconstruction algorithms on multiple reference interactomes. We first explored several human protein interactomes, including PathwayCommons, OmniPath, HIPPIE, iRefWeb, STRING, and ConsensusPathDB. The comparison is based on the coverage of each interactome in terms of cancer driver proteins, structural information of protein interactions, and the bias toward well-studied proteins. We next used these interactomes to evaluate the performance of network reconstruction algorithms including all-pair shortest path, heat diffusion with flux, personalized PageRank with flux, and prize-collecting Steiner forest (PCSF) approaches. Each approach has its own merits and weaknesses. Among them, PCSF had the most balanced performance in terms of precision and recall scores when 28 pathways from NetPath were reconstructed using the listed algorithms. Additionally, the reference interactome affects the performance of the network reconstruction approaches. The coverage and disease- or tissue-specificity of each interactome may vary, which may result in differences in the reconstructed networks.
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.