Cited by 216Bioinformatics and Genomic NetworksGene Regulatory Network AnalysisComplex Network Analysis Techniques

“Guilt by Association” Is the Exception Rather Than the Rule in Gene Networks

Open access
Gillis, Jesse, Pavlidis, Paul·2012·PLoS Computational Biology

Abstract

Gene networks are commonly interpreted as encoding functional information in their connections. An extensively validated principle called guilt by association states that genes which are associated or interacting are more likely to share function. Guilt by association provides the central top-down principle for analyzing gene networks in functional terms or assessing their quality in encoding functional information. In this work, we show that functional information within gene networks is typically concentrated in only a very few interactions whose properties cannot be reliably related to the rest of the network. In effect, the apparent encoding of function within networks has been largely driven by outliers whose behaviour cannot even be generalized to individual genes, let alone to the network at large. While experimentalist-driven analysis of interactions may use prior expert knowledge to focus on the small fraction of critically important data, large-scale computational analyses have typically assumed that high-performance cross-validation in a network is due to a generalizable encoding of function. Because we find that gene function is not systemically encoded in networks, but dependent on specific and critical interactions, we conclude it is necessary to focus on the details of how networks encode function and what information computational analyses use to extract functional meaning. We explore a number of consequences of this and find that network structure itself provides clues as to which connections are critical and that systemic properties, such as scale-free-like behaviour, do not map onto the functional connectivity within 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 · 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002444

Cites

67 of 67 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?

  • The fraction of genes in a module that relate to its main biological function is often <20%.

    “In reality, the fraction of genes in a module that relate to its main biological function is often <20% [127]”

    From Gene co-expression analysis for functional classification and gene–disease predictions (2017) · cites this paper as [127]

    The Results sections on yeast and mouse networks discuss how functional information is concentrated in a few edges, not the proportion of genes in a module related to its main function. Searches for module composition and the <20% figure found no passage reporting that claim; page numbers were unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.74)

    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

1 of the 68 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [40]Costanzo M Baryshnikova A Bellay J Kim Y Spear ED 2010 The genetic landscape of a cell. Science 327 425 431 20093466 PMC5600254

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gillis, J., & Pavlidis, P.
Affiliations
University of British Columbia (CA)
Corresponding author
Pavlidis, Paul
Venue
PLoS Computational Biology
Published
2012-03-29
Volume
8
Issue
3
Pages
e1002444
ISSN
  • 1553-734X (ISSN-L)
  • 1553-7358
OpenAlex
W2146545950
Cited by
214
References
68
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 25 · 2012: 10
FWCI
7.46
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS Computational Biology (publishedVersion, public-domain)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, public-domain)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, public-domain)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Institutional Repository (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Michael Smith Health Research BC
  • National Institutes of Health
  • Canadian Institutes of Health Research
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (GM076990, R01GM076990)
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
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Statistical and Nonlinear Physics › Complex Network Analysis Techniques
Keywords
guilt by association, gene networks, genetic interactions, network topology, scale-free networks, critical interaction, functional connectivity
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Animals, Computer Simulation, Humans, Models, Biological, Signal Transduction, Proteome, Protein Interaction Mapping

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