Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40062619›Full record

ArticleBriefings in bioinformatics2025

Testing and overcoming the limitations of modular response analysis.

Jean-Pierre Borg, Jacques Colinge, Patrice Ravel

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Briefings in bioinformatics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Jean-Pierre BorgUniversité de Montpellier, 5 Bd Henri IV, 34000 Montpellier, France.
Jacques ColingeUniversité de Montpellier, 5 Bd Henri IV, 34000 Montpellier, France.ORCID 0000-0003-2466-4824
Patrice RavelUniversité de Montpellier, 5 Bd Henri IV, 34000 Montpellier, France.ORCID 0000-0002-5752-7343

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Modular response analysis (MRA) is an effective method to infer biological networks from perturbation data. However, it has several limitations such as strong sensitivity to noise, need of performing independent perturbations that hit a single node at a time, and linear approximation of dependencies within the network. Previously, we addressed the sensitivity of MRA to noise by reinterpreting MRA as a multilinear regression problem. We demonstrated the advantages of this approach over the conventional MRA and other known inference methods, particularly in handling noise measurements and nonlinear networks. Here, we provide new contributions to complement this theory. First, we overcome the need of perturbations to be independent, thereby augmenting MRA applicability. Second, using analysis of variance and lack-of-fit tests, we can now assess MRA compatibility with the data and identify the primary source of errors. In cases where nonlinearity prevails, we propose extending the model to a second-order polynomial. Third, we demonstrate how to effectively use prior knowledge about a network. We validated these results using 4 networks with known dynamics (3, 4, and 6 nodes) and 40 simulated networks, ranging from 10 to 200 nodes. Finally, we incorporated these innovations into our R software package MRARegress to offer a comprehensive, extended theory for MRA and to facilitate its use by the community. Mathematical aspects, tests details, and scripts are provided as Supplementary Information (see 'Data Availability Statement').

Indexed as

Computational BiologyModels, BiologicalAlgorithmsComputer SimulationHumansconvex optimizationlack of fitMRAMRARegressnetwork inferenceregression

Identifiers

PMID40062619
PMCPMC11891662

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.