Developing predictive molecular maps of human disease through community-based modeling

Nature Genetics

Volumn 44, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 127-130

  Derry, Jonathan M J ^a   Mangravite, Lara M ^a   Suver, Christine ^a   Furia, Matthew D ^a   Henderson, David ^a   Schildwachter, Xavier ^a   Bot, Brian ^a   Izant, Jonathan ^a   Sieberts, Solveig K ^a   Kellen, Michael R ^a   Friend, Stephen H ^a  

^a SAGE BIONETWORKS   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMMUNITY CARE; COMPUTER INTERFACE; DATA ANALYSIS; GENE MAPPING; GENOMICS; HUMAN; MOLECULAR MODEL; PREDICTION; PREDICTIVE MOLECULAR MAP; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REPRODUCIBILITY; REVIEW; SYNAPSE; WORKFLOW;

COMMUNITY NETWORKS; DATABASES, GENETIC; DISEASE; DRUG DISCOVERY; HUMANS; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL;

EID: 84856277549     PISSN: 10614036     EISSN: 15461718     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/ng.1089     Document Type: Review

References (21)

1. Kola, I. & Landis, J. Can the pharmaceutical industry reduce attrition rates. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 3, 711-715 (2004). (Pubitemid 39173511)
2. Barabási, A.-L. & Oltvai, Z.N. Network biology: understanding the cell's functional organization. Nat. Rev. Genet. 5, 101-113 (2004). (Pubitemid 38160277)
3. Friend, S.H. The need for precompetitive integrative bionetwork disease model building. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 87, 536-539 (2010).
4. Schadt, E.E., Friend, S.H. & Shaywitz, D.A. A network view of disease and compound screening. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 8, 286-295 (2009).
5. Tegnér, J.N. et al. Computational disease modeling-fact or fiction? BMC Syst. Biol. 3, 56 (2009).
6. Mesirov, J.P. Computer science. Accessible reproducible research. Science 327, 415-416 (2010).
7. Gentleman, R. Reproducible research: a bioinformatics case study. Stat. Appl. Genet. Mol. Biol. 4, Article2 (2005).
8. Musen, M.A. et al. The National Center for Biomedical Ontology. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. published online, doi:10.1136/amiajnl-2011-000523 (10 November 2011).
9. Rocca-Serra, P. et al. ISA software suite: supporting standards-compliant experimental annotation and enabling curation at the community level. Bioinformatics 26, 2354-2356 (2010).
10. Friend, S.H. Something in common. Sci. Transl. Med. 2, 40ed6 (2010).
11. Hrynaszkiewicz, I. The need and drive for open data in biomedical publishing. Serials 24, 31-37 (2011).
12. Schofield, P.N. et al. Post-publication sharing of data and tools. Nature 461, 171-173 (2009).
13. Guttmacher, A.E., Nabel, E.G. & Collins, F.S. Why data-sharing policies matter. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 106, 16894 (2009).
14. Field, D. et al. Megascience. 'Omics data sharing. Science 326, 234-236 (2009).
15. Science Staff. Dealing with data. Challenges and opportunities. Introduction. Science 331, 692-693 (2011).
16. Giardine, B. et al. Systematic documentation and analysis of human genetic variation in hemoglobinopathies using the microattribution approach. Nat. Genet. 43, 295-301 (2011).
17. Anonymous. Data's shameful neglect. Nature 461, 145 (2009).
18. Anderson, N. & Edwards, K. Building a chain of trust: using policy and practice to enhance trustworthy clinical data discovery and sharing. Proceedings of the 2010 Workshop on Governance of Technology, Information and Policies 15-20 (ACM Press, New York, New York, USA, 2010).
19. Walport, M. & Brest, P. Sharing research data to improve public health. Lancet 377, 537-539 (2011).
20. Knoppers, B.M. et al. Towards a data sharing Code of Conduct for international genomic research. Genome Med. 3, 46 (2011).
21. Shelton, R.H. Electronic consent channels: preserving patient privacy without handcuffing researchers. Sci. Transl. Med. 3, 69cm4 (2011).