Cited by 2,420Gene Regulatory Network AnalysisBioinformatics and Genomic NetworksGene expression and cancer classification

ARACNE: An Algorithm for the Reconstruction of Gene Regulatory Networks in a Mammalian Cellular Context

Open access
Margolin, Adam A, Nemenman, Ilya, Basso, Katia, Wiggins, Chris, Stolovitzky, Gustavo, Favera, Riccardo Dalla, Califano, Andrea·2006·BMC Bioinformatics

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Elucidating gene regulatory networks is crucial for understanding normal cell physiology and complex pathologic phenotypes. Existing computational methods for the genome-wide "reverse engineering" of such networks have been successful only for lower eukaryotes with simple genomes. Here we present ARACNE, a novel algorithm, using microarray expression profiles, specifically designed to scale up to the complexity of regulatory networks in mammalian cells, yet general enough to address a wider range of network deconvolution problems. This method uses an information theoretic approach to eliminate the majority of indirect interactions inferred by co-expression methods. RESULTS: We prove that ARACNE reconstructs the network exactly (asymptotically) if the effect of loops in the network topology is negligible, and we show that the algorithm works well in practice, even in the presence of numerous loops and complex topologies. We assess ARACNE's ability to reconstruct transcriptional regulatory networks using both a realistic synthetic dataset and a microarray dataset from human B cells. On synthetic datasets ARACNE achieves very low error rates and outperforms established methods, such as Relevance Networks and Bayesian Networks. Application to the deconvolution of genetic networks in human B cells demonstrates ARACNE's ability to infer validated transcriptional targets of the cMYC proto-oncogene. We also study the effects of misestimation of mutual information on network reconstruction, and show that algorithms based on mutual information ranking are more resilient to estimation errors. CONCLUSION: ARACNE shows promise in identifying direct transcriptional interactions in mammalian cellular networks, a problem that has challenged existing reverse engineering algorithms. This approach should enhance our ability to use microarray data to elucidate functional mechanisms that underlie cellular processes and to identify molecular targets of pharmacological compounds in mammalian cellular networks.

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 · 10.1186/1471-2105-7-s1-s7

Cites

21 of 21 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?

  • ARACNE removes indirect connections between genes, leaving only those connections that are expected to be regulatory.

    “ARACNE removes indirect connections between genes (i.e. partners of a gene that have a stronger correlation with each other than with the gene itself), leaving only those connections that are expected to be regulatory.”

    From Gene co-expression analysis for functional classification and gene–disease predictions (2017) · cites this paper as [23]

    The Algorithm section says ARACNE removes the vast majority of indirect candidate interactions, and the Data Processing Inequality section specifies that it removes the weakest edge in a gene triplet based on mutual information—not correlation. The Background says the remaining dependencies are likely to identify direct regulatory interactions, but also cautions that other types of interactions may be identified. Thus the claim captures the method's aim but overstates what the retained connections represent. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    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: 9

  1. Ma S-K Statistical mechanics 1985 Singapore: World Scientific
  2. Pearl J Probabilistic reasoning in intelligent systems: networks of plausible inference 1988 San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Inc
  3. Cover TM Thomas JA Elements of Information Theory 1991 New York: John Wiley & Sons
  4. Yu J Smith AV Wang PP Hartemink AJ Jarvis ED Using Bayesian Network Inference Algorithms to Recover Molecular Genetic Regulatory Networks 3rd International Conference on Systems Biology 2002
  5. Chickering DM Fisher DaL H Learning Bayesian networks is NP-complete Learning from Data: Artificial Intelligence and Statistics 1996 New York: Springer-Verlag 121 130
  6. Wang K Nemenman I Banerjee N Margolin AA Califano A Genome-wide Discovery of Modulators of Transcriptional Interactions in Human B Lymphocytes Proceedings of the 10th Intl Conf on Res In Comp Mol Biol (RECOMB), Venice Apr 2006
  7. Yedidia J Opper M, Saad D An idiosyncratic journey beyond mean field theory Advanced Mean Field Methods: Theory and Practice 2001 Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
  8. Opper M Winther O Opper M, Saad D From naive mean field theory to the TAP equations Advanced mean field methods: theory and practice 2001 Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
  9. Yedidia JS Freeman WT Weiss Y Generalized Belief Propagation Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS) 2001 13 689 695

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Margolin, A. A., Nemenman, I., Basso, K., Wiggins, C., Stolovitzky, G., Favera, R. D., & Califano, A.
Affiliations
  • Columbia University (US)
  • IBM Research - Thomas J. Watson Research Center (US)
Corresponding author
Califano, Andrea
Venue
BMC Bioinformatics
Published
2006-03
Volume
7
Issue
S1
Pages
S7-S7
ISSN
1471-2105 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2163296115
Cited by
2,420
References
21
Citations by year
2026: 89 · 2025: 135 · 2024: 131 · 2023: 154 · 2022: 126 · 2021: 156 · 2020: 171 · 2019: 142 · 2018: 154 · 2017: 166 · 2016: 142 · 2015: 141 · 2014: 124 · 2013: 129 · 2012: 120
FWCI
21.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMC Bioinformatics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (acceptedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • National Cancer Institute (R01CA109755)
  • National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (R01AI066116)
  • U.S. National Library of Medicine (T15LM007079)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gene Regulatory Network Analysis
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Bioinformatics and Genomic Networks
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gene expression and cancer classification
Keywords
gene regulatory network reconstruction, ARACNE, mutual information, transcriptional regulatory networks, mammalian cells, human B cells, c-Myc, network loops, microarray expression profiles
MeSH terms
Proto-Oncogene Mas, Algorithms, Animals, B-Lymphocytes, Computer Simulation, Gene Expression Regulation, Humans, Phenotype, Software, Transcription, Genetic, Reproducibility of Results, Models, Statistical, Neural Networks, Computer, Computational Biology, Oligonucleotide Array Sequence Analysis, Gene Expression Profiling

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