Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40553338›Full record

ReviewMethods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.)2025

Machine Learning Approaches for the Identification of Genetic Interactions.

Anubha Dey, Manjari Kiran

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.), 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

2 authors.

Anubha DeyDepartment of Systems and Computational Biology, School of Life Sciences, University of Hyderabad, Hyderabad, Telangana, India.
Manjari KiranDepartment of Systems and Computational Biology, School of Life Sciences, University of Hyderabad, Hyderabad, Telangana, India. manjari.hcu@uohyd.ac.in.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Genetic interactions are crucial in understanding the crosstalk between the gene pairs and help decipher their functional roles. They are defined as phenotypic outcomes resulting from two or more gene interactions. A gene proves to be an exceptional drug target of which the partner gene is mutated or overexpressed. Genetic interaction in cancer has been widely used for targeted therapy, of which synthetic lethality (SL) is the most studied. SL is a negative interaction in which inhibiting either of the genes does not affect the cell viability, but inhibiting both genes makes the cancer cell lethal. Various experimental and computational methods have been developed to identify and predict these interactions. This book chapter reviews different machine learning methods to predict SL interaction and how it mediates drug sensitivity. The chapter takes the reader through the salient features of different classical machine learning algorithms and their limitation. It also provides comprehensive knowledge about the features utilized for the model training and their importance. By the end of this book chapter, the readers will have an overview of different methods to identify genetic interaction and their associated advantages and limitations.

Indexed as

Computational BiologyEpistasis, GeneticMachine LearningNeoplasmsAlgorithmsHumansSynthetic Lethal MutationsCancerGenetic interactionsMachine learningSynthetic lethality (SL)

Identifiers

PMID40553338

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.