The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Predicting disease genes using protein–protein interactions
Open accessAbstract
Background: The responsible genes have not yet been identified for many genetically mapped disease loci. Physically interacting proteins tend to be involved in the same cellular process, and mutations in their genes may lead to similar disease phenotypes. Objective: To investigate whether protein–protein interactions can predict genes for genetically heterogeneous diseases. Methods: 72 940 protein–protein interactions between 10 894 human proteins were used to search 432 loci for candidate disease genes representing 383 genetically heterogeneous hereditary diseases. For each disease, the protein interaction partners of its known causative genes were compared with the disease associated loci lacking identified causative genes. Interaction partners located within such loci were considered candidate disease gene predictions. Prediction accuracy was tested using a benchmark set of known disease genes. Results: Almost 300 candidate disease gene predictions were made. Some of these have since been confirmed. On average, 10% or more are expected to be genuine disease genes, representing a 10-fold enrichment compared with positional information only. Examples of interesting candidates are AKAP6 for arrythmogenic right ventricular dysplasia 3 and SYN3 for familial partial epilepsy with variable foci. Conclusions: Exploiting protein–protein interactions can greatly increase the likelihood of finding positional candidate disease genes. When applied on a large scale they can lead to novel candidate gene predictions.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
A comprehensive analysis of protein–protein interactions in Saccharomyces cerevisiae
Uetz, P., Giot, L., Cagney, G., Mansfield, T. A., Judson, R. S., Knight, J. R., Lockshon, D., Narayan, V., Srinivasan, M., Pochart, P., et al. (2000) · Nature · doi:10.1038/35001009 · Cited by 4,706
A comprehensive two-hybrid analysis to explore the yeast protein interactome
Ito, T., Chiba, T., Ozawa, R., Yoshida, M., Hattori, M., & Sakaki, Y. (2001) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.061034498 · Cited by 3,566
Cited by
Network medicine: a network-based approach to human disease
Barabási, A.-L., Gulbahce, N., & Loscalzo, J. (2011) · Nature Reviews Genetics · doi:10.1038/nrg2918 · Cited by 5,034
Interactome Networks and Human Disease
Vidal, M., Cusick, M. E., & Barabási, A.-L. (2011) · Cell · doi:10.1016/j.cell.2011.02.016 · Cited by 1,771
Uncovering disease-disease relationships through the incomplete interactome
Menche, J., Sharma, A., Kitsak, M., Ghiassian, S. D., Vidal, M., Loscalzo, J., & Barabási, A.-L. (2015) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1257601 · Cited by 1,546
Walking the Interactome for Prioritization of Candidate Disease Genes
Köhler, S., Bauer, S., Horn, D., & Robinson, P. N. (2008) · The American Journal of Human Genetics · doi:10.1016/j.ajhg.2008.02.013 · Cited by 1,258
Structure and dynamics of molecular networks: A novel paradigm of drug discovery
Csermely, P., Korcsmáros, T., Kiss, H. J. M., London, G., & Nussinov, R. (2013) · Pharmacology & Therapeutics · doi:10.1016/j.pharmthera.2013.01.016 · Cited by 892
Metadata
- Authors
- Oti, M., Snel, B., Huynen, M. A., & Brunner, H. G.
- Venue
- Journal of Medical Genetics
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2006-04-12
- Volume
- 43
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 691-698
- ISSN
- 0022-2593 (ISSN-L)
- 1468-6244
- OpenAlex
- W2020301095
- Cited by
- 574
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 9.33
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Predicting disease genes using protein–protein interactions. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/jmg.2006.041376
- The paper
- Oti, M., Snel, B., Huynen, M. A., & Brunner, H. G. (2006). Predicting disease genes using protein–protein interactions. Journal of Medical Genetics. https://doi.org/10.1136/jmg.2006.041376
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.