Cited by 1,546Bioinformatics and Genomic NetworksBiomedical Text Mining and OntologiesGene Regulatory Network Analysis

Uncovering disease-disease relationships through the incomplete interactome

Open access
Menche, Jörg, Sharma, Amitabh, Kitsak, Maksim, Ghiassian, Susan Dina, Vidal, Marc, Loscalzo, Joseph, Barabási, Albert-László·2015·Science

Abstract

A network approach to finding disease modules: Shared genes represent a powerful but limited representation of the mechanistic relationship between two diseases. However, the analysis of protein-protein interactions has been hampered by the incompleteness of interactome maps. Menche et al. formulated the mathematical conditions needed to allow a disease module (a localized region of connections between disease-related proteins) to be observed. Only diseases with data coverage that exceeds a specific threshold have identifiable disease modules. The network-based distance between two disease modules revealed that disease pairs that are predicted to have overlapping modules had statistically significant molecular similarity. These similarities encompassed their protein components, gene expression, symptoms, and morbidity. Molecular-level links between diseases lacking shared disease genes could also be identified. Science , this issue 10.1126/science.1257601

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 · 10.1126/science.1257601

Cites

108 of 108 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 strategies identify therapeutic candidates based on their impact on cell signaling, gene expression and disease phenotypes.

    “These strategies identify therapeutic candidates based on their impact on cell signaling, gene expression and disease phenotypes5,10–12.”

    From A foundation model for clinician-centered drug repurposing (2024) · cites this paper as [10]

  • Diseases with shared mechanisms can also share effective drugs.

    “Diseases with shared mechanisms can also share effective drugs10.”

    From A foundation model for clinician-centered drug repurposing (2024) · cites this paper as [10]

  • Diseases can share disease-associated genetic and genomic networks.

    “TxGNN leverages an additional metric learning component for zero-shot prediction, capitalizing on the insight that diseases can share disease-associated genetic and genomic networks10,14 and, thus, medical knowledge of disease-associated networks can be transferred by the model from well-annotated diseases to other diseases to enhance predictions on diseases with limited treatment options (Fig. 2a”

    From A foundation model for clinician-centered drug repurposing (2024) · cites this paper as [10]

  • Learned embeddings from graph representation learning that capture genome-wide interactions have improved disease predictions, including at tissue and single-cell resolution.

    “Learned embeddings—using graph representation learning methods—that capture genome-wide interactions has enhanced disease predictions, even at the resolution of tissues and single cells.”

    From Graph representation learning in biomedicine and healthcare (2022) · cites this paper as [45]

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: 2

  1. [31]Ramos EM European Journal of Human Genetics 2013
  2. [36]Su AI Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A 2004 101 6062

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Menche, J., Sharma, A., Kitsak, M., Ghiassian, S. D., Vidal, M., Loscalzo, J., & Barabási, A.-L.
Affiliations
  • Northeastern University (US)
  • Harvard University (US)
  • Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
  • Center for Complex Networks Research and Department of Physics, Northeastern University, 110 Forsyth Street, 111 Dana Research Center, Boston, MA 02115, USA.
Venue
Science
Published
2015-02-20
Volume
347
Issue
6224
Pages
1257601-1257601
ISSN
  • 0036-8075 (ISSN-L)
  • 1095-9203
OpenAlex
W2056782561
Cited by
1,546
References
108
Citations by year
2026: 110 · 2025: 112 · 2024: 128 · 2023: 131 · 2022: 142 · 2021: 188 · 2020: 180 · 2019: 149 · 2018: 160 · 2017: 111 · 2016: 98 · 2015: 37
FWCI
58.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Science (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • NIH (P50-HG004233, U01-HG001715)
  • NHLBI (PO1-HL083069, R37-HL061795, RC2-HL101543, U01-HL108630)
  • NHGRI (UO1-HG007690)
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
human interactome, symptom similarity, comorbidities
MeSH terms
Disease, Humans, Information Services, Comorbidity, Genetic Predisposition to Disease, Protein Interaction Maps

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