Cited by 900Bioinformatics and Genomic NetworksGene Regulatory Network AnalysisReceptor Mechanisms and Signaling

A draft network of ligand–receptor-mediated multicellular signalling in human

Open access
Ramilowski, Jordan A., Goldberg, Tatyana, Harshbarger, Jayson, Kloppmann, Edda, Lizio, Marina, Satagopam, Venkata P., Itoh, Masayoshi, Kawaji, Hideya +3 more·2015·Nature Communications

Abstract

Cell-to-cell communication across multiple cell types and tissues strictly governs proper functioning of metazoans and extensively relies on interactions between secreted ligands and cell-surface receptors. Herein, we present the first large-scale map of cell-to-cell communication between 144 human primary cell types. We reveal that most cells express tens to hundreds of ligands and receptors to create a highly connected signalling network through multiple ligand-receptor paths. We also observe extensive autocrine signalling with approximately two-thirds of partners possibly interacting on the same cell type. We find that plasma membrane and secreted proteins have the highest cell-type specificity, they are evolutionarily younger than intracellular proteins, and that most receptors had evolved before their ligands. We provide an online tool to interactively query and visualize our networks and demonstrate how this tool can reveal novel cell-to-cell interactions with the prediction that mast cells signal to monoblastic lineages via the CSF1-CSF1R interacting pair.

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/ncomms8866

Cites

62 of 62 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?

  • Based on a database of ligand-receptor pairs, TSKs participated in extensive autocrine and paracrine interactions (mostly with CAFs, endothelial cells, macrophages, and MDSCs).

    “Based on a database of ligand-receptor pairs (Ramilowski et al., 2015), TSKs participated in extensive autocrine and paracrine interactions (mostly with CAFs, endothelial cells, macrophages, and MDSCs)”
  • There were 22 trans-CDS associations between known ligand-receptor pairs.

    “There were also 22 trans-CDS associations between known ligand–receptor pairs37 (Supplementary Table 11).”
  • A literature review of newly published experimental reports was used to validate 7 of the top 20 and 2 of the bottom predicted ATG dark genes.

    “A literature review of newly published experimental reports was used to validate 7 of the top 20 and 2 of the bottom predicted ATG dark genes (73).”

    From Artificial Intelligence for Drug Discovery: Are We There Yet? (2024) · cites this paper as [73]

    The Results section discusses ligand and receptor detection in B cells, and the Discussion mentions a literature review of B-cell proteome findings. Neither addresses predicted ATG dark genes or validation of 7 top-ranked and 2 bottom-ranked genes. Searches for those terms and counts found no relevant passage in our copy; page numbers were not supplied. (LLM, conf=0.75)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • An ATG-specific XGBoost machine learning model was developed to aid in designing relevant experiments.

    “Given the complexity of ATG-associated genomic datasets, an ATG-specific XGBoost machine learning model was developed to aid in designing relevant experiments (73).”

    From Artificial Intelligence for Drug Discovery: Are We There Yet? (2024) · cites this paper as [73]

    The Methods describe FANTOM5 expression profiles and GO/InterPro enrichment analysis, while the Discussion describes a web tool for exploring ligand–receptor signalling. Searches for ATG, XGBoost, and a machine-learning model for experiment design found no passage addressing the claim in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The ATG-specific meta-path XGBoost model used 103 ATG-associated (positive) genes and 3468 negatives, collating data from Pharos.

    “The ATG-specific meta-path XGBoost model used 103 ATG-associated (positive) genes and 3468 negatives (not ATG-associated genes), collating data from Pharos.”

    From Artificial Intelligence for Drug Discovery: Are We There Yet? (2024) · cites this paper as [73]

    The Methods section, “Reference set of human protein-coding genes” (page not provided), describes an HGNC/UniProt gene set, not the claimed ATG model. Searches for “ATG-specific meta-path XGBoost,” the 103 positive and 3,468 negative genes, and Pharos found no passage addressing the claim. (LLM, conf=0.77)

    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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ramilowski, J. A., Goldberg, T., Harshbarger, J., Kloppmann, E., Lizio, M., Satagopam, V. P., Itoh, M., Kawaji, H., Carninci, P., Rost, B., & Forrest, A. R. R.
Affiliations
  • RIKEN (JP)
  • Technical University of Munich (DE)
  • Luxembourg Centre for Systems Biomedicine (LU)
  • The University of Western Australia (AU)
Corresponding author
  • Ramilowski, Jordan A.
  • Forrest, Alistair R. R.
Venue
Nature Communications
Published
2015-07-22
Volume
6
Issue
1
Pages
7866-7866
ISSN
2041-1723 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1016059894
Cited by
887
References
62
Citations by year
2026: 58 · 2025: 92 · 2024: 78 · 2023: 120 · 2022: 132 · 2021: 154 · 2020: 122 · 2019: 67 · 2018: 37 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 1
FWCI
8.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Communications (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • UWA Profiles and Research Repository (UWA) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Open Repository and Bibliography (University of Luxembourg) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Conquer Cancer Foundation
  • Alexander von Humboldt-Stiftung
  • Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology
  • National Institutes of Health (GM095315)
  • RIKEN
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (U54GM095315)
Topics
  • 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
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Receptor Mechanisms and Signaling
Keywords
cell-to-cell communication, ligand-receptor interactions, autocrine signaling, secreted proteins, plasma membrane proteins, protein evolution, mast cells, network visualization tools
MeSH terms
Animals, Cell Communication, Humans, Ligands, Receptors, Cell Surface, Software, Evolution, Molecular

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