Cited by 140Gene Regulatory Network AnalysisBayesian Modeling and Causal InferenceBioinformatics and Genomic Networks

Methods for causal inference from gene perturbation experiments and validation

Open access
Meinshausen, Nicolai, Hauser, Alain, Mooij, Joris M., Peters, Jonas, Versteeg, Philip, Bühlmann, Peter·2016·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract

Inferring causal effects from observational and interventional data is a highly desirable but ambitious goal. Many of the computational and statistical methods are plagued by fundamental identifiability issues, instability, and unreliable performance, especially for large-scale systems with many measured variables. We present software and provide some validation of a recently developed methodology based on an invariance principle, called invariant causal prediction (ICP). The ICP method quantifies confidence probabilities for inferring causal structures and thus leads to more reliable and confirmatory statements for causal relations and predictions of external intervention effects. We validate the ICP method and some other procedures using large-scale genome-wide gene perturbation experiments in Saccharomyces cerevisiae . The results suggest that prediction and prioritization of future experimental interventions, such as gene deletions, can be improved by using our statistical inference techniques.

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 · 10.1073/pnas.1510493113

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?

  • Because gene expression data can be noisy and variable, recent work fuses co-expression matrices with existing biomedical networks such as GO annotations and PPI, then feeds the resulting graph into graph convolution layers.

    “Because gene expression data can be noisy and variational, recent advances include fusing the co-expression matrices with existing biomedical networks, such as GO annotations and PPI, and feeding the resulting graph into graph convolution layers (Section 2.2) [150, 151, 152].”

    From Graph representation learning in biomedicine and healthcare (2022) · cites this paper as [150]

  • This fusion has enabled more interpretable disease classification models, for example by weighting gene interactions using existing biological knowledge.

    “Doing so has enabled more interpretable disease classification models (e.g., weighting gene interactions based on existing biological knowledge).”

    From Graph representation learning in biomedicine and healthcare (2022) · cites this paper as [150]

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

4 of the 53 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Mooij JM, Cremers J (2015) An empirical study of one of the simplest causal prediction algorithms. Proceedings of the UAI 2015 Workshop on Advances in Causal Inference, CEUR Workshop Proceedings (CEUR-WS.org, Aachen, Germany), Vol 1504, pp 30-39.
  2. Peters J, Bühlmann P, Meinshausen N (2016) Causal inference using invariant pre- diction: Identification and confidence intervals (with discussion). arXiv:1501.01332. · arXiv
  3. Rothenhäusler D, Heinze C, Peters J, Meinshausen N (2015) Backshift: Learning causal cyclic graphs from unknown shift interventions. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 28 (NIPS) (Curran Associates, Red Hook, NY), pp 1513-1521.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Meinshausen, N., Hauser, A., Mooij, J. M., Peters, J., Versteeg, P., & Bühlmann, P.
Affiliations
  • ETH Zurich (CH)
  • Bern University of Applied Sciences (CH)
  • University of Amsterdam (NL)
  • Max Planck Institute for Intelligent Systems (DE)
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2016-07-05
Volume
113
Issue
27
Pages
7361-7368
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
OpenAlex
W2460828264
Cited by
140
References
53
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 28 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 6
FWCI
4.85
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (VIDI grant 639.072.410)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gene Regulatory Network Analysis
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Bayesian Modeling and Causal Inference
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Bioinformatics and Genomic Networks
Keywords
causal inference, gene deletion, Saccharomyces cerevisiae, causal discovery, intervention prediction, identifiability
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Flow Cytometry, Models, Genetic, Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Software, Statistics as Topic, Gene Deletion

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