Cited by 289Bioinformatics and Genomic NetworksBiomedical Text Mining and OntologiesGene Regulatory Network Analysis

Systematic Evaluation of Molecular Networks for Discovery of Disease Genes

Open access
Huang, Justin K., Carlin, Daniel E., Yu, Michael Ku, Zhang, Wei, Kreisberg, Jason F., Tamayo, Pablo, Ideker, Trey·2018·Cell Systems

Abstract

Gene networks are rapidly growing in size and number, raising the question of which networks are most appropriate for particular applications. Here, we evaluate 21 human genome-wide interaction networks for their ability to recover 446 disease gene sets identified through literature curation, gene expression profiling, or genome-wide association studies. While all networks have some ability to recover disease genes, we observe a wide range of performance with STRING, ConsensusPathDB, and GIANT networks having the best performance overall. A general tendency is that performance scales with network size, suggesting that new interaction discovery currently outweighs the detrimental effects of false positives. Correcting for size, we find that the DIP network provides the highest efficiency (value per interaction). Based on these results, we create a parsimonious composite network with both high efficiency and performance. This work provides a benchmark for selection of molecular networks in human disease research.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.cels.2018.03.001

Cites

91 of 91 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Huang, J. K., Carlin, D. E., Yu, M. K., Zhang, W., Kreisberg, J. F., Tamayo, P., & Ideker, T.
Affiliations
University of California San Diego (US)
Corresponding author
Huang, Justin K.
Venue
Cell Systems
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-04
Volume
6
Issue
4
Pages
484-495.e5
ISSN
2405-4712 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2794479004
Cited by
289
References
91
Citations by year
2026: 23 · 2025: 35 · 2024: 35 · 2023: 32 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 60 · 2020: 35 · 2019: 32 · 2018: 11
FWCI
12.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cell Systems (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (W911-NF-14-1-0397)
  • National Institutes of Health (R01 HG009979, P30 CA023100, U54 CA209891, T32 GM008806, R01 CA154480, R01 CA121941, P41 GM103504, U24 CA184427, OT3 TR002026, P50 GM085764)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Bioinformatics and Genomic Networks
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Biomedical Text Mining and Ontologies
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gene Regulatory Network Analysis
Keywords
disease gene discovery, gene interaction networks, protein-protein interaction network, network benchmarking, network selection, network size, false positives, composite networks, strings, giants, DIP, human disease genes
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Humans, Genome, Human, Computational Biology, Genetic Predisposition to Disease, Gene Regulatory Networks

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review