Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38215198›Full record

SynthesisScience advances2024

A meta-analysis of Boolean network models reveals design principles of gene regulatory networks.

Claus Kadelka, Taras-Michael Butrie, Evan Hilton, Jack Kinseth, Addison Schmidt, Haris Serdarevic

Abstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Science advances, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

31 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. BioLogical: a universal analysis framework for biosystem logical dynamics.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2026
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Automated model refinement using perturbation-observation pairs.NPJ systems biology and applications · 2025
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Claus KadelkaDepartment of Mathematics, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-5712-8529
Taras-Michael ButrieDepartment of Aerospace Engineering, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011, USA.ORCID 0009-0007-3743-3677
Evan HiltonDepartment of Computer Science, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011, USA.ORCID 0009-0003-0218-2450
Jack KinsethDepartment of Mathematics, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011, USA.ORCID 0009-0000-0504-0544
Addison SchmidtDepartment of Computer Science, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011, USA.ORCID 0009-0003-6953-2830
Haris SerdarevicDepartment of Mathematics, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Gene regulatory networks (GRNs) play a central role in cellular decision-making. Understanding their structure and how it impacts their dynamics constitutes thus a fundamental biological question. GRNs are frequently modeled as Boolean networks, which are intuitive, simple to describe, and can yield qualitative results even when data are sparse. We assembled the largest repository of expert-curated Boolean GRN models. A meta-analysis of this diverse set of models reveals several design principles. GRNs exhibit more canalization, redundancy, and stable dynamics than expected. Moreover, they are enriched for certain recurring network motifs. This raises the important question why evolution favors these design mechanisms.

Indexed as

Gene Regulatory NetworksModels, GeneticAlgorithms

Identifiers

PMID38215198
PMCPMC10786419

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.