ArticleNature communications2025
Resolving discrepancies between chimeric and multiplicative measures of higher-order epistasis.
Article in Nature communications, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- An explanatory composite metric for air cargo network robustness: incorporating pairwise synergistic effects.Scientific reports · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Epistasis - the interaction between alleles at different genetic loci - plays a fundamental role in biology. However, several recent approaches quantify epistasis using a chimeric formula that measures deviations from a multiplicative fitness model on an additive scale, thus mixing two scales. Here, we show that for pairwise interactions, the chimeric formula yields a different magnitude but the same sign of epistasis compared to the multiplicative formula that measures both fitness and deviations on a multiplicative scale. However, for higher-order interactions, we show that the chimeric formula can have both different magnitude and sign compared to the multiplicative formula. We resolve these inconsistencies by deriving mathematical relationships between the different epistasis formulae and different parametrizations of the multivariate Bernoulli distribution. We argue that the chimeric formula does not appropriately model interactions between the Bernoulli random variables. In simulations, we show that the chimeric formula is less accurate than the classical multiplicative/additive epistasis formulae and may falsely detect higher-order epistasis. Analyzing multi-gene knockouts in yeast, multi-way drug interactions in E. coli, and deep mutational scanning of several proteins, we find that approximately 10% to 60% of inferred higher-order interactions change sign using the multiplicative/additive formula compared to the chimeric formula.
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.