Cited by 662Scientific Computing and Data ManagementBioinformatics and Genomic NetworksGene Regulatory Network Analysis

Functional genomic hypothesis generation and experimentation by a robot scientist

Open access
King, Ross D., Whelan, Kenneth E., Jones, Ffion M., Reiser, Philip G. K., Bryant, Christopher H., Muggleton, Stephen H., Kell, Douglas B., Oliver, Stephen G.·2004·Nature

Abstract

The question of whether it is possible to automate the scientific process is of both great theoretical interest and increasing practical importance because, in many scientific areas, data are being generated much faster than they can be effectively analysed. We describe a physically implemented robotic system that applies techniques from artificial intelligence to carry out cycles of scientific experimentation. The system automatically originates hypotheses to explain observations, devises experiments to test these hypotheses, physically runs the experiments using a laboratory robot, interprets the results to falsify hypotheses inconsistent with the data, and then repeats the cycle. Here we apply the system to the determination of gene function using deletion mutants of yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) and auxotrophic growth experiments. We built and tested a detailed logical model (involving genes, proteins and metabolites) of the aromatic amino acid synthesis pathway. In biological experiments that automatically reconstruct parts of this model, we show that an intelligent experiment selection strategy is competitive with human performance and significantly outperforms, with a cost decrease of 3-fold and 100-fold (respectively), both cheapest and random-experiment selection.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/nature02236

Cites

66 of 67 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Self-check

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

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so the self-check wasn’t run.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Alexanders, J. (2017). The role of psychological skills within physio- therapy: A narrative review of the profession and training. Physical Therapy Reviews, 21.
  2. Ton, J., Perry, D., Thomas, B., Allan, G. M., Lindblad, A. J., Mccormack, J., Kolber, M. R., Garrison, S., Moe, S., Craig, R., Dugré, N., Chan, K., Finley, C. R., Ting, R., & Korownyk, C. S. (2020). PEER umbrella systematic review of systematic reviews: Management of osteoar- thritis in primary care. Canadian Family Physician, 66, e89-e98.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
King, R. D., Whelan, K. E., Jones, F. M., Reiser, P. G. K., Bryant, C. H., Muggleton, S. H., Kell, D. B., & Oliver, S. G.
Affiliations
  • Aberystwyth University (GB)
  • Robert Gordon University (GB)
  • Imperial College London (GB)
  • University of Manchester (GB)
Corresponding author
Oliver, Stephen G.
Venue
Nature
Published
2004-01
Volume
427
Issue
6971
Pages
247-252
ISSN
  • 0028-0836 (ISSN-L)
  • 1476-4687
OpenAlex
W2136636278
Cited by
662
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 26 · 2025: 31 · 2024: 26 · 2023: 54 · 2022: 52 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 30 · 2019: 33 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 25 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 22 · 2014: 25 · 2013: 24 · 2012: 24
FWCI
106.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • University of Salford Institutional Repository (University of Salford) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR202203)
  • Department of Health and Social Care
  • Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (GR/R60621/01, GR/R54071/01)
  • Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (E19354)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Scientific Computing and Data Management
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Bioinformatics and Genomic Networks
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gene Regulatory Network Analysis
Keywords
robot scientists, automated hypothesis generation, automated experimentation, laboratory automation, gene function analysis, deletion mutants, Saccharomyces cerevisiae, aromatic amino acid biosynthesis, metabolic pathway modeling, artificial intelligence in science
MeSH terms
Workforce, Algorithms, Amino Acids, Computer Simulation, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Efficiency, Genes, Fungal, Humans, Learning, Models, Biological, Phenotype, Probability, Research, Research Design, Research Personnel, Robotics, Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Software, Time Factors, Open Reading Frames, Gene Deletion, Computational Biology, Genomics, Saccharomyces cerevisiae Proteins

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