Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37538387›Full record

ArticleComplexity2020

The Dynamics of Canalizing Boolean Networks.

Elijah Paul, Gleb Pogudin, William Qin, Reinhard Laubenbacher

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Complexity, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Canalizing kernel for cell fate determination.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2024
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Identification of dynamic driver sets controlling phenotypical landscapes.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2022
    Article
  6. Article
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

4 authors.

Elijah PaulCalifornia Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-8042-8474
Gleb PogudinCourant Institute of Mathematical Sciences, New York University, New York, NY, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-5731-8242
William QinMillburn High School, Millburn, NJ, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6090-6953
Reinhard LaubenbacherCenter for Quantitative Medicine, University of Connecticut Health Center and Jackson Laboratory for Genomic Medicine, Farmington, CT, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-9143-9451

Funding

Modular design of multiscale models, with an application to the innate immune response to fungal respiratory pathogens.U01EB024501 · NIBIB · UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA · PI LAUBENBACHER, REINHARD, MEHRAD, BORNA · 2017 to 2020
$2.9M
NIBIB NIH HHS U01 EB024501
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Boolean networks are a popular modeling framework in computational biology to capture the dynamics of molecular networks, such as gene regulatory networks. It has been observed that many published models of such networks are defined by regulatory rules driving the dynamics that have certain so-called canalizing properties. In this paper, we investigate the dynamics of a random Boolean network with such properties using analytical methods and simulations. From our simulations, we observe that Boolean networks with higher canalizing depth have generally fewer attractors, the attractors are smaller, and the basins are larger, with implications for the stability and robustness of the models. These properties are relevant to many biological applications. Moreover, our results show that, from the standpoint of the attractor structure, high canalizing depth, compared to relatively small positive canalizing depth, has a very modest impact on dynamics. Motivated by these observations, we conduct mathematical study of the attractor structure of a random Boolean network of canalizing depth one (i.e., the smallest positive depth). For every positive integer

Identifiers

PMID37538387
PMCPMC10399297

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.