Cited by 108Bioinformatics and Genomic NetworksFungal and yeast genetics researchGene Regulatory Network Analysis

Dosage suppression genetic interaction networks enhance functional wiring diagrams of the cell

Open access
Magtanong, Leslie, Ho, Cheuk Hei, Barker, Sarah L, Jiao, Wei, Baryshnikova, Anastasia, Bahr, Sondra, Smith, Andrew M, Heisler, Lawrence E +11 more·2011·Nature Biotechnology

Abstract

Dosage suppression is a genetic interaction in which overproduction of one gene rescues a mutant phenotype of another gene. Although dosage suppression is known to map functional connections among genes, the extent to which it might illuminate global cellular functions is unclear. Here we analyze a network of interactions linking dosage suppressors to 437 essential genes in yeast. For 424 genes, we curated interactions from the literature. Analyses revealed that many dosage suppression interactions occur between functionally related genes and that the majority do not overlap with other types of genetic or physical interactions. To confirm the generality of these network properties, we experimentally identified dosage suppressors for 29 genes from pooled populations of temperature-sensitive mutant cells transformed with a high-copy molecular-barcoded open reading frame library, MoBY-ORF 2.0. We classified 87% of the 1,640 total interactions into four general types of suppression mechanisms, which provided insight into their relative frequencies. This work suggests that integrating the results of dosage suppression studies with other interaction networks could generate insights into the functional wiring diagram of a cell.

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 · 10.1038/nbt.1855

Cites

49 of 49 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?

  • These findings show dosage suppression of EXOSC3 G191 variant effects through DIS3 upregulation.

    “Together, these findings show dosage suppression of EXOSC3 G191 variant effects through DIS3 upregulation95.”

    From EXOSC3 G191 Variants Trigger System-Wide Recalibration of RNA Processing Machinery (2026) · cites this paper as [95]

    The paper defines dosage suppression as rescue of a mutant phenotype through overexpression of another gene (Abstract) and describes examples in the Results. Our copy does not report EXOSC3 G191 variant effects or their suppression through DIS3 upregulation; searches for EXOSC3, DIS3, G191, and related exosome-gene terms did not find that specific interaction. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [33]Hodgkin J Genetic suppression. WormBook 27, 1– 13 (2005). PMC4781008 18023120

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Magtanong, L., Ho, C. H., Barker, S. L., Jiao, W., Baryshnikova, A., Bahr, S., Smith, A. M., Heisler, L. E., Choy, J. S., Kuzmin, E., Andrusiak, K., Kobylianski, A., Li, Z., Costanzo, M., Basrai, M. A., Giaever, G., Nislow, C., Andrews, B., & Boone, C.
Affiliations
  • University of Toronto (CA)
  • National Institutes of Health (US)
Corresponding author
  • Andrews, Brenda
  • Boone, Charles
Venue
Nature Biotechnology
Published
2011-05-15
Volume
29
Issue
6
Pages
505-511
ISSN
  • 0733-222X (ISSN-L)
  • 1087-0156
  • 1546-1696
OpenAlex
W2066072558
Cited by
108
References
49
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 16
FWCI
5.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Biotechnology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • Canadian Institutes of Health Research (84305_1, 020380, (MO)P-81340, MOP-57830)
  • National Cancer Institute (Z01BC010822, Z01SC010360)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Bioinformatics and Genomic Networks
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Fungal and yeast genetics research
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gene Regulatory Network Analysis
Keywords
genetic interactions, essential genes, Saccharomyces cerevisiae, inhibition mechanism, temperature-sensitive mutants, gene interaction networks
MeSH terms
Decision Trees, Genes, Fungal, Mutation, Phenotype, Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Suppression, Genetic, Transcription, Genetic, Signal Transduction, Down-Regulation, Gene Library, Gene Expression Regulation, Fungal, Open Reading Frames, Cyclic AMP-Dependent Protein Kinases, Kinetochores, Genes, Essential, Gene Expression Profiling, Protein Interaction Mapping, Gene Regulatory Networks, High-Throughput Nucleotide Sequencing

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