Industrial methodology for process verification in research (IMPROVER): Toward systems biology verification

Bioinformatics

Volumn 28, Issue 9, 2012, Pages 1193-1201

  Meyer, Pablo ^a   Hoeng, Julia ^b   Rice, J Jeremy ^a   Norel, Raquel ^a   Sprengel, Jörg ^c   Stolle, Katrin ^b   Bonk, Thomas ^b   Corthesy, Stephanie ^c   Royyuru, Ajay ^a   Peitsch, Manuel C ^b   Stolovitzky, Gustavo ^a  

^a IBM   (United States)

^b Research and Development   (Switzerland)

^c IBM   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

METHODOLOGY; PEER REVIEW; PUBLICATION; REPRODUCIBILITY; REVIEW; SYSTEMS BIOLOGY; WORKFLOW;

PEER REVIEW; PERIODICALS AS TOPIC; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SYSTEMS BIOLOGY; WORKFLOW;

EID: 84860475570     PISSN: 13674803     EISSN: 14602059     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/bioinformatics/bts116     Document Type: Review

References (39)

1. (2002) SEGEN JC. McGraw-Hill Concise Dictionary of Modern Medicine©. McGraw-Hill.
2. Alberts, B. et al. (2008) Reviewing peer review. Science, 321, 15.
3. Ayer, A.J. (1936) Language, Truth, and Logic. Oxford University Press.
4. Ben-David, M. et al. (2009) Assessment of CASP8 structure predictions for template free targets. Proteins, 77 (Suppl. 9), 50-65.
5. Compston, A. and Coles, A. (2008) Multiple sclerosis. Lancet, 372, 1502-1517.
6. Davis, J. and Goadrich, M. (2006) The relationship between Precision-Recall and ROC curves. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Machine learning. ACM, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, pp. 233-240.
7. Dougherty, E.R. (2011)Validation of gene regulatory networks: scientific and inferential. Brief Bioinform., 12, 245-252.
8. Dreze, M. et al. (2010) High-quality binary interactome mapping. Methods Enzymol., 470, 281-315.
9. Fayyad, U. et al. (1996) TheKDDprocess for extracting useful knowledge from volumes of data. Commun. ACM, 39, 27-34.
10. Gavin, A.C. et al. (2006) Proteome survey reveals modularity of the yeast cell machinery. Nature, 440, 631-636.
11. Hirschman, L. et al. (2005) Overview of BioCreAtIvE: critical assessment of information extraction for biology. BMC Bioinformatics, 6 (Suppl. 1), S1.
12. Ioannidis, J.P.A. (2005) Microarrays and molecular research: noise discovery? Lancet, 365, 454-455.
13. Ito, T. et al. (2001) A comprehensive two-hybrid analysis to explore the yeast protein interactome. In Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA, 98, 4569-4574.
14. Jelizarow, M. et al. (2010) Over-optimism in bioinformatics: an illustration. Bioinformatics, 26, 1990-1998.
15. Kuhn, T. (1962) The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press.
16. Lim, W.K. et al. (2009) Master regulators used as breast cancer metastasis classifier. Pac. Symp. Biocomput., 504-515.
17. Mandavilli, A. (2011) Peer review: trial by Twitter. Nature, 469, 286-287.
18. Marbach, D. et al. (2010) Revealing strengths and weaknesses of methods for gene network inference. In Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 107, 6286-6291.
19. Mehta, T. et al. (2004) Towards sound epistemological foundations of statistical methods for high-dimensional biology. Nat. Genet., 36, 943-947.
20. Meyer, P. et al. (2011)Verification of systems biology research in the age of collaborative competition. Nat. Biotech., 29, 811-815.
21. Minagar, A. et al. (2006) Multiple sclerosis as a vascular disease. Neurol. Res., 28, 230-235.
22. Morgan, A.A. et al. (2008) Overview of BioCreative II gene normalization. Genome Biol., 9 Suppl 2, S3.
23. Moult, J. et al. (1995) A large-scale experiment to assess protein structure prediction methods. Prot. Struct. Func. Bioinform., 23, ii-iv.
24. Moult, J. (1996) The current state of the art in protein structure prediction. Current Opinion in Biotechnology, 7, 422-427.
25. Norel, R. et al. (2011) The self-assessment trap: can we all be better than average? Mol. Syst. Biol., 7, 537.
26. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (1998) OECD Good Laboratory Practice - Principles and Guidance for Compliance Monitoring, OECD press
27. Paik, S. et al. (2004) A multigene assay to predict recurrence of tamoxifen-treated, node-negative breast cancer. New Engl. J. Med., 351, 2817-2826.
28. Popper, K.R. (1959) The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Routledge Classics.
29. Prill, R.J. et al. (2010) Towards a rigorous assessment of systems biology models: the DREAM3 challenges. PLoS One, 5, e9202.
30. Prill, R.J. et al. (2011) Crowdsourcing network inference: the DREAM predictive signaling network challenge. Sci. Signal., 4, mr7.
31. Purcell, S. et al. (2007) PLINK: a tool set for whole-genome association and populationbased linkage analyses. Am. J. Hum. Genet., 81, 559-575.
32. Rudick, R.A. et al. (2006) Natalizumab plus interferon beta-1a for relapsing multiple sclerosis. New Engl. J. Med., 354, 911-923.
33. Spier, R. (2002) The history of the peer-review process. Trends Biotechnol., 20, 357-358.
34. Stolovitzky, G. et al. (2007) Dialogue on reverse-engineering assessment and methods. Ann. NY. Acad. Sci., 1115, 1-22.
35. Stolovitzky, G. et al. (2009) Lessons from the DREAM2 challenges. Ann.NY. Acad. Sci., 1158, 159-195.
36. Subramanian, J. and Simon, R. (2010) What should physicians look for in evaluating prognostic gene-expression signatures? Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol., 7, 327-334.
37. Uetz, P. and Hughes, R.E. (2000) Systematic and large-scale two-hybrid screens. Curr. Opin. Microbiol., 3, 303-308.
38. van de Vijver, M.J. et al. (2002) A gene-expression signature as a predictor of survival in breast cancer. New Engl. J. Med., 347, 1999-2009.
39. Wodak, S.J. and Mendez, R. (2004) Prediction of protein-protein interactions: the CAPRI experiment, its evaluation and implications. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol., 14, 242-249.