4.8 Article

HumanNet v2: human gene networks for disease research

Journal

NUCLEIC ACIDS RESEARCH
Volume 47, Issue D1, Pages D573-D580

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/nar/gky1126

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) - Korean Government (MSIT) [NRF-2018M3C9A5064709, NRF-2018R1A5A2025079, NRF-2018R1C1B5032617]
  2. Brain Korea 21 (BK21) PLUS Program
  3. NIH [R35GM130119, P30 CA016672]
  4. NSF
  5. Welch Foundation [F-1515]
  6. CPRIT Grant [RR160032]
  7. National Research Foundation of Korea

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Human gene networks have proven useful in many aspects of disease research, with numerous network-based strategies developed for generating hypotheses about gene-disease-drug associations. The ability to predict and organize genes most relevant to a specific disease has proven especially important. We previously developed a human functional gene network, HumanNet, by integrating diverse types of omics data using Bayesian statistics framework and demonstrated its ability to retrieve disease genes. Here, we present HumanNet v2 (http://www.inetbio.org/humannet), a database of human gene networks, which was updated by incorporating new data types, extending data sources and improving network inference algorithms. HumanNet now comprises a hierarchy of human gene networks, allowing for more flexible incorporation of network information into studies. HumanNet performs well in ranking disease-linked gene sets with minimal literature-dependent biases. We observe that incorporating model organisms' protein-protein interactions does not markedly improve disease gene predictions, suggesting that many of the disease gene associations are now captured directly in human-derived datasets. With an improved interactive user interface for disease network analysis, we expect HumanNet will be a useful resource for network medicine.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available