Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

RNA-KG v2.0: An RNA-centered Knowledge Graph with Properties

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read RNA-KG v2.0 is a property-graph knowledge base that integrates about 100 million curated RNA-centered interactions from 91 linked open-data sources and attaches context properties—cell line, tissue, disease, experimental method, and support

desk verdict A useful, testable resource release with a few provenance and evaluation gaps that need fixing before I'd trust the numbers. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.07427 v1 pith:C6P2QZAW submitted 2025-08-10 cs.DB q-bio.QM

Emanuele Cavalleri , Paolo Perlasca , Marco Mesiti This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.DBq-bio.QM
keywords knowledgegraphRNAinteractionspropertybiomedicalontologiesdataintegrationnon-codinglinkpredictioncontext-awarequerying
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper sets out to upgrade RNA-KG from a plain ontology-based graph of RNA-centered associations to a property graph in which both molecules and their interactions carry structured attributes. The central claim is that this added context—sequence, genomic coordinates, cell line, tissue, pathological state, experimental method, and supporting literature—makes the roughly 100 million integrated interactions substantially more usable for fine-grained queries and for machine-learning tasks such as context-aware link prediction. A sympathetic reader would take the contribution to be a resource and a demonstration: the paper shows concrete Cypher queries, a content-aware pruning experiment, and link-prediction results that improve when node properties are added. If the resource is reliable, it lowers the barrier to asking condition-specific questions about RNA biology.

What carries the argument

The property graph model is the load-bearing mechanism: nodes carry labels, descriptions, synonyms, sequences, genomic coordinates, and species, while edges carry confidence scores, experimental methods, context annotations, supporting PubMed identifiers, and provenance. Edge types are grounded in Relation Ontology properties, with more specific subtypes and explicit inverse relationships, and node types come from OBO ontologies and Rfam categories. This combination of standard identifiers, ontology-typed edges, and explicit edge properties is what lets queries filter by context and lets machine-learning models consume semantic content, not just topology.

What would settle it

Independently re-resolve a random sample of 1,000 RNA-KG v2.0 edges: take both endpoint identifiers back to the original source records and to the standard scheme (RNAcentral, Ensembl, or ontology term) via the published look-up tables, and count mismatches. A mismatch rate materially above zero, or a failure to reproduce the claimed 6,553,767 nodes and 99,936,712 relationships from the released code and input files, would falsify the construction claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The discovery is a construction claim: 80 public repositories and 11 biomedical ontologies can be reconciled into a single property graph with 6,553,767 nodes and 99,936,712 relationships, and the reconciliation is what unlocks new analysis. RNA identities are grounded at isoform level—RNAcentral identifiers for non-coding RNAs, Ensembl transcript identifiers for mRNAs—so isoforms that differ by a few nucleotides are no longer collapsed. Relationship types come from the Relation Ontology at varying granularity, and each relationship may carry score, method, context, interactor, variants, the source list, and PubMed identifiers. The paper argues this representation is enough to support contex

Load-bearing premise

The entire graph is only as sound as the look-up tables and entity-linking rules that map each source's proprietary identifiers to standard schemes (RNAcentral for non-coding RNAs, Ensembl for transcripts, and ontology terms), and the paper reports no measured accuracy for those mappings.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Researchers can write Cypher queries that restrict interactions by experimental validation (e.g., western blotting), by sequence composition (e.g., uracil content above 25%), or by shared supporting literature across an miRNA–gene–disease triple.
  • The isoform-level identification scheme distinguishes transcript variants such as LINC-PINT-205 and LINC-PINT-206, which the earlier gene-level release collapsed into one Entrez identifier.
  • Context-aware pruning can reduce graph size by 19.8% in a sncRNA subgraph by collapsing only isomorphic groups whose members have high sequence alignment scores, preserving biologically meaningful differences.
  • Adding sequence and description embeddings to topological link prediction improves balanced accuracy in most tested cases, with gains up to +5 percentage points on RNA–gene prediction.
  • Time-stratified evaluation on the miRNAdisease view, trained on edges supported by pre-2022 papers, assigns plausibility scores above 0.5 to 82% of later-discovered interactions, suggesting the graph supports predictive use.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Because context strings such as "hela cell" are stored as source-provided values rather than mapped to a controlled vocabulary, the same interaction context may be expressed in several spellings; normalizing context to ontology terms would make context-aware queries more reliable than the current examples suggest.
  • The time-stratified setup could be standardized as a benchmark for RNA link prediction: train on all edges with PubMed IDs up to year T, test on edges first reported after T, and report accuracy with the same unbiased pipeline, letting different embedding methods be compared on the same temporal split.
  • If the look-up tables and entity-linking rules are released as reusable artifacts, they could serve as a benchmark for identifier mapping in RNA databases; the paper reports no precision or recall for these mappings, so their accuracy is the main uncertainty.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces RNA-KG v2.0, a property-graph knowledge base centered on RNA interactions. It integrates 80 repositories and 11 ontologies, yielding 6,553,767 nodes and 99,936,712 relationships, with 27,242,075 node properties and 242,896,588 edge properties. The authors describe a new identification scheme based on RNAcentral and Ensembl, the addition of 20 new data sources, the enrichment of nodes and edges with context properties (tissue, cell line, method, PubMed IDs), and a public Neo4j endpoint, web portal, and REST API. Several use cases are presented, including context-aware Cypher queries, content-aware pruning, and topological and multimodal link prediction on a miRNA-disease view, plus a time-stratified link-prediction validation. The core contribution is a large, publicly accessible RNA-centered KG with standardized identifiers and rich properties.

Significance. If the data-quality concerns below are addressed, RNA-KG v2.0 would be a valuable resource for the RNA bioinformatics community. The scale (100M relationships, hundreds of edge types, millions of properties) is substantially larger than the previous version and enables queries that most other RNA interaction resources do not support, especially context-aware filtering by method, tissue, disease, and supporting literature. The grounding of non-coding RNAs in RNAcentral and mRNAs in Ensembl is a welcome improvement over gene-level conflation, and the public portal/API and reproducible data release (Zenodo/GitHub) are concrete strengths that allow independent validation. However, the claims as written are weakened by a misleading characterization of all interactions as 'manually curated' and by the absence of an evaluation of the identifier-mapping step, which is load-bearing for any KG claiming standard identification schemes.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and New Data Sources and Identification Schemes] The abstract and introduction describe the ~100M interactions as 'manually curated'. However, the newly integrated sources listed in the same section include miRanda, RNAhybrid, microT (computational target predictors), STRING (computational association predictions), and GeneMANIA (functional association predictions). Those edges are not manually curated experimental observations and have different reliability profiles. Conflating them inflates the apparent evidence base and is not a purely terminological issue: downstream users will interpret 'manually curated' as experimental validation. Please reclassify interactions by evidence type (curated, experimental, computational prediction), report counts per category, and adjust the abstract accordingly. The edge property 'score' mentioned in 'Edges’ properties' is not systematically described; clarify how prediction scores from sources such
  2. [New Data Sources and Identification Schemes (Look-up tables)] The statement 'Look-up tables were used to map proprietary identifiers to standard identification schemes as shown in [10]' is the sole support for the identifier-mapping step. The paper reports no precision, recall, or manual audit of these tables. Because a wrong mapping can conflate distinct isoforms (e.g., two RNAcentral URS entries) or attach an edge to the wrong entity, a non-negligible error rate would propagate through every Cypher query, view, and link-prediction experiment. The paper itself acknowledges that 'manual efforts are often required to retrieve standard identifiers,' yet provides no evidence that the large-scale mapping is accurate. This is testable: the public endpoint allows sampling and verifying mappings against RNAcentral/Ensembl cross-references. Please add a mapping-quality evaluation (or at minimum a clear limitation section and an error estimate from a manual
  3. [Applications and Use Cases, Example 5 (Fig. 9)] The pruning experiment reports 'reduced to 9.3k nodes and 196.3M edges' from an initial subgraph of approximately 9.8k nodes and 244.8k edges. The figure '196.3M' cannot be correct; a 19.8% reduction from 244.8k yields approximately 196.3k edges. This appears to be a typo, but as written it describes a graph four orders of magnitude larger than the input, which would undermine the quantitative claim if taken literally. Please correct and verify all numbers in this example.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract says '91 linked open data repositories and ontologies' while the introduction says '80 publicly available repositories and 11 biomedical ontologies.' This is consistent arithmetically, but the phrasing may confuse; consider writing '80 repositories and 11 ontologies (91 sources)' for clarity.
  2. [RNA-KG Bio-Entities (Bio-entities’ properties)] Typo: 'synomyms' should be 'synonyms'.
  3. [RNA-KG Bio-Entities (node type distribution)] The phrase 'according to the proposed histograms' is unclear; presumably 'according to the identification schemes listed in Table 1' is intended.
  4. [Applications and Use Cases (Time-stratified link prediction, Fig. 11)] The statement that 82% of predicted links achieve scores above 0.5 is reported without a random or negative-control baseline. As a validation of KG quality, it would be more convincing if compared to a null distribution (e.g., scores on a permuted graph). At the very least, note that high raw scores may reflect model calibration rather than predictive signal.
  5. [Edges’ properties] The choice to represent ternary relationships as lists of attributes is justified, but the paper should explicitly warn that querying with IN or list containment may be less efficient and that users seeking reified n-ary structures must transform the data themselves. This is a usability caveat worth stating.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the KG is an external-data integration; self-citations to the construction pipeline and link-prediction method are not load-bearing in a circular sense.

full rationale

RNA-KG v2.0 is a resource-integration paper. Its central claim—99,936,712 relationships across 6,553,767 nodes from 80 repositories and 11 ontologies—is a statement about imported data, not a derived prediction. Every node/edge is sourced from external databases (RNAcentral, Ensembl, DisGeNET, STRING, etc.) or from ontology hierarchies, so there is no fitted parameter or target quantity that the paper then 'predicts'. The two self-references that appear are (i) 'Look-up tables were used to map proprietary identifiers to standard identification schemes as shown in [10]' (New Data Sources and Identification Schemes) and (ii) 'All experiments followed the unbiased pipeline described in [65]' (Topological and context-aware link predictions). Both cite the authors' prior work, but neither is load-bearing in a circular sense: the look-up tables are an implementation mechanism whose accuracy is externally testable against RNAcentral/Ensembl and is not the conclusion of this paper; the [65] pipeline is a published methodology used to run evaluation experiments, not a premise that entails the reported accuracies. The absence of precision/recall numbers for identifier mapping is a legitimate robustness gap (the paper itself acknowledges that 'manual efforts are often required to retrieve standard identifiers'), but a missing evaluation is not a circular derivation. The time-stratified link prediction (Example 8) uses a before/after split on PubMed years and is a demonstration, not an equivalence between input and output. No equation in the paper reduces to its own assumptions.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The resource relies on standard ontologies and external databases; no new theoretical entities are introduced. The main dependencies are the fidelity of source databases and the accuracy of identifier mapping. The link prediction demonstrations use standard ML infrastructure and do not fit the central claim itself.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The 91 integrated sources correctly report the biological interactions and their contexts.
    The KG is only as reliable as its sources; the paper builds on these records without independent verification. Introduced in 'New Data Sources and Identification Schemes'.
  • domain assumption The look-up tables and class-based entity linking map proprietary identifiers to standard identifiers without substantial errors.
    Stated in 'New Data Sources and Identification Schemes': 'Look-up tables were used to map proprietary identifiers to standard identification schemes'. No evaluation of mapping accuracy is provided.
  • domain assumption Relations annotated with 'over-expressed' or 'under-expressed' semantics accurately reflect the original source's experimental metadata.
    Used to specialize generic disease edges in the introduction; the extraction of these properties from source metadata is not described in detail.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of RNA-KG v2.0: An RNA-centered Knowledge Graph with Properties." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/C6P2QZAW

@misc{pith2026250807427,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: RNA-KG v2.0: An RNA-centered Knowledge Graph with Properties},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/C6P2QZAW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.07427}
}
read the original abstract

RNA-KG is a recently developed knowledge graph that integrates the interactions involving coding and non-coding RNA molecules extracted from public data sources. It can be used to support the classification of new molecules, identify new interactions through the use of link prediction methods, and reveal hidden patterns among the represented entities. In this paper, we propose RNA-KG v2.0, a new release of RNA-KG that integrates around 100M manually curated interactions sourced from 91 linked open data repositories and ontologies. Relationships are characterized by standardized properties that capture the specific context (e.g., cell line, tissue, pathological state) in which they have been identified. In addition, the nodes are enriched with detailed attributes, such as descriptions, synonyms, and molecular sequences sourced from platforms such as OBO ontologies, NCBI repositories, RNAcentral, and Ensembl. The enhanced repository enables the expression of advanced queries that take into account the context in which the experiments were conducted. It also supports downstream applications in RNA research, including "context-aware" link prediction techniques that combine both topological and semantic information.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.07427 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Node property distribution. coordinates [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. RNA node distribution [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Hierarchy of RNA molecules with associated properties. multiple loci in the genome). Proprietary specialized databases contribute additional annotations when molecules cannot be mapped on Ensembl/RNAcentral terminologies (details in the Supplementary material) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: outlines the most important edges’ properties that we have identified in terms of cardinality and biological relevance, highlighting properties involving RNA molecules. Examples of properties are i) the score that indicates the level of confidence for the interaction t…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Excerpt of a RNA-KG subgraph. The Web portal and API The new release of RNA-KG is stored as a property graph database. A public Neo4j endpoint has been realized to query our KG and made available at https://neo4j.biodata.di.unimi. it with username and password rnakgv20…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: RNA-KG web portal. Content-aware KG pruning and clustering Traditional approaches to KG pruning (i.e. the process of conflating or removing nodes and edges that are irrelevant to a specific analysis [22]) and clustering (i.e. grouping together highly similar nodes) typ…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: node2vec probability scores for relations discovered after 2022. be used to validate the KG quality, as it is expected to support the discovery of future knowledge based on past evidence. Example 8 To validate the miRNAdisease view using a time￾stratified scenario, we…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Unifying biomedical knowledge in a modern multimodal graph

    cs.AI 2026-04 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    OptimusKG is a labeled property graph unifying biomedical knowledge from structured sources into 190,531 nodes of 10 types and 21.8 million edges of 26 types, with 70% of sampled edges supported by literature evidence...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

71 extracted references · 70 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [10]

    An ontology-based knowledge graph for representing interactions involving rna molecul es

    Emanuele Cavalleri et al. An ontology-based knowledge graph for representing interactions involving rna molecul es. Scientific Data , 11(1):906, Aug 2024

    work page 2024

  2. [1]

    Gene ontology: tool for the unification of biology

    Michael Ashburner et al. Gene ontology: tool for the unification of biology. Nature Genetics , 25(1):25–29, May 2000

    work page 2000

  3. [2]

    Bartel and Chang-Zheng Chen

    David P. Bartel and Chang-Zheng Chen. Micromanagers of gene expression: the potentially widespread influence of metazoan micrornas. Nature Reviews Genetics , 5(5):396–400, May 2004

    work page 2004

  4. [3]

    Boerneke et al

    Mark A. Boerneke et al. Physical and Functional Analysis of Viral RNA Genomes by SHAPE. Annual Review of Virology, 6(1):93–117, September 2019

    work page 2019

  5. [4]

    Translating embeddings for modeling multi-relational data

    Antoine Bordes et al. Translating embeddings for modeling multi-relational data. In C.J. Burges, L. Bottou, M. Welling, Z. Ghahramani, and K.Q. Weinberger, editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume 26. Curran Associates, Inc., 2013

    work page 2013

  6. [5]

    UniProtKB/Swiss-Prot, the Manually Annotated Section of the UniProt KnowledgeBase: How to Use the Entry View , page 23–54

    Emmanuel Boutet et al. UniProtKB/Swiss-Prot, the Manually Annotated Section of the UniProt KnowledgeBase: How to Use the Entry View , page 23–54. Springer New York, 2016

    work page 2016

  7. [6]

    Callahan et al

    Tiffany J. Callahan et al. OWL-NETS: Transforming OWL Representations for Improved Network Inference. In Biocomputing 2018 . WORLD SCIENTIFIC, November 2017

    work page 2018

  8. [7]

    Callahan et al

    Tiffany J. Callahan et al. An open source knowledge graph ecosystem for the life sciences. Scientific Data , 11(1), April 2024

    work page 2024

Show all 71 references
  1. [8]

    Grape for fast and scalable graph processing and random-walk-based embedding

    Luca Cappelletti et al. Grape for fast and scalable graph processing and random-walk-based embedding. Nature Computational Science , 3(6):552–568, June 2023

    2023

  2. [9]

    KG-Hub—building and exchanging biological knowledge graphs

    J Harry Caufield et al. KG-Hub—building and exchanging biological knowledge graphs. Bioinformatics, 39(7):btad418, 06 2023

    2023

  3. [11]

    Cech and Joan A

    Thomas R. Cech and Joan A. Steitz. The noncoding rna revolution—trashing old rules to forge new ones. Cell, 157(1):77–94, March 2014

    2014

  4. [12]

    Origins and evolving functionalities of tRNA - derived small RNAs

    Qi Chen et al. Origins and evolving functionalities of tRNA - derived small RNAs. Trends in Biochemical Sciences , 46(10):790–804, October 2021

    2021

  5. [13]

    Tuning RNA folding and function through rational design of junction topology

    May Daher et al. Tuning RNA folding and function through rational design of junction topology. Nucleic Acids Research, 45(16):9706–9715, July 2017

    2017

  6. [14]

    The limitless future of rna therapeutics

    Tulsi Ram Damase et al. The limitless future of rna therapeutics. Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology, 9, March 2021

    2021

  7. [15]

    Comparative Toxicogenomics Database (CTD): update 2023

    Allan Peter Davis et al. Comparative Toxicogenomics Database (CTD): update 2023. Nucleic Acids Research , 51(D1):D1257–D1262, September 2022

    2023

  8. [16]

    BioBLP: a modular framework for learning on multimodal biomedical knowledge graphs

    Daniel Daza et al. BioBLP: a modular framework for learning on multimodal biomedical knowledge graphs. Journal of Biomedical Semantics , 14(1), December 2023

    2023

  9. [17]

    Degtyarenko et al

    K. Degtyarenko et al. Chebi: a database and ontology for chemical entities of biological interest. Nucleic Acids Research, 36(Database):D344–D350, December 2007

    2007

  10. [18]

    metapath2vec: Scalable Representati on Learning for Heterogeneous Networks

    Yuxiao Dong et al. metapath2vec: Scalable Representati on Learning for Heterogeneous Networks. In Proc. of the 23rd ACM SIGKDD Int’l Conf. on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining , page 135–144, August 2017

    2017

  11. [19]

    Ensembl 2025

    Sarah C Dyer et al. Ensembl 2025. Nucleic Acids Research, 53(D1):D948–D957, 12 2024

    2025

  12. [20]

    The sequence ontology: a tool for the unification of genome annotations

    Karen Eilbeck et al. The sequence ontology: a tool for the unification of genome annotations. Genome Biology , 6(5), April 2005

    2005

  13. [21]

    Large scale homophily analysis in twitter using a twixonomy

    Stefano Faralli et al. Large scale homophily analysis in twitter using a twixonomy. In Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence , IJCAI’15, page 2334–2340. AAAI Press, 2015

    2015

  14. [22]

    Efficient Pruning of Large Knowledge Graphs

    Stefano Faralli et al. Efficient Pruning of Large Knowledge Graphs. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence , pages 4055–4063, 07 2018

    2018

  15. [23]

    Formal semantics of the language Cypher, 2018

    Nadime Francis et al. Formal semantics of the language Cypher, 2018

    2018

  16. [24]

    circBase: a database for circular RN As

    Petar Glaˇ zar et al. circBase: a database for circular RN As. RNA, 20(11):1666–1670, September 2014. Enhancing RNA-KG with Properties 11

    2014

  17. [25]

    Node2vec: Scalable feature learning for networks

    Aditya Grover and Jure Leskovec. Node2vec: Scalable feature learning for networks. In Proc. of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD Int’l Conf. on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, page 855–864, 2016

    2016

  18. [26]

    Mitchell Guttman and John L. Rinn. Modular regulatory principles of large non-coding rnas. Nature, 482(7385):339–346, February 2012

    2012

  19. [27]

    Vo: Vaccine ontology

    Yongqun He et al. Vo: Vaccine ontology. Nature Precedings, August 2009

    2009

  20. [28]

    Higgins and Paul M

    Desmond G. Higgins and Paul M. Sharp. CLUSTAL: a package for performing multiple sequence alignment on a microcomputer. Gene, 73(1):237–244, 1988

    1988

  21. [29]

    I. L. Hofacker et al. Fast folding and comparison of RNA secondary structures. Monatshefte f¨ ur Chemie Chemical Monthly, 125(2):167–188, February 1994

    1994

  22. [30]

    The Non-Coding RNA Ontology (NCRO): a comprehensive resource for the unification of non-coding RNA biology

    Jingshan Huang et al. The Non-Coding RNA Ontology (NCRO): a comprehensive resource for the unification of non-coding RNA biology. Journal of Biomedical Semantics, 7(1), May 2016

    2016

  23. [31]

    Human MicroRNA Targets

    Bino John et al. Human MicroRNA Targets. PLoS Biology, 2(11):e363, October 2004

    2004

  24. [32]

    Rfam 14: expanded coverage of metagenomic, viral and microrna families

    Ioanna Kalvari et al. Rfam 14: expanded coverage of metagenomic, viral and microrna families. Nucleic Acids Research, 49(D1):D192–D200, November 2020

    2020

  25. [33]

    Rnainter v4.0: Rna interactome repository with redefined confidence scoring system and improved accessibility

    Juanjuan Kang et al. Rnainter v4.0: Rna interactome repository with redefined confidence scoring system and improved accessibility. Nucleic Acids Research , 50(D1):D326–D332, October 2021

    2021

  26. [34]

    A Semi-Supervised Method to Learn and Construct Taxonomies Using the Web

    Zornitsa Kozareva and Eduard Hovy. A Semi-Supervised Method to Learn and Construct Taxonomies Using the Web. In Proc. of the Conf. on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , pages 1110–1118, October 2010

    2010

  27. [35]

    Kruger and M

    J. Kruger and M. Rehmsmeier. RNAhybrid: microRNA target prediction easy, fast and flexible. Nucleic Acids Research, 34(Web Server):W451–W454, July 2006

    2006

  28. [36]

    ClinVar: updates to support classifications of both germline and somatic variants

    Melissa J Landrum et al. ClinVar: updates to support classifications of both germline and somatic variants. Nucleic Acids Research , 53(D1):D1313–D1321, November 2024

    2024

  29. [37]

    BioBERT: a pre-trained biomedical language representation model for biomedical text mining

    Jinhyuk Lee et al. BioBERT: a pre-trained biomedical language representation model for biomedical text mining. Bioinformatics, 36(4):1234–1240, 2020

    2020

  30. [38]

    Leontis et al

    Neocles B. Leontis et al. The RNA Ontology Consortium: An open invitation to the RNA community. RNA, 12(4):533–541, February 2006

    2006

  31. [39]

    starBase v2.0: decoding miRNA-ceRNA, miRNA-ncRNA and protein–RNA interaction networks from large-scale CLIP-Seq data

    Jun-Hao Li et al. starBase v2.0: decoding miRNA-ceRNA, miRNA-ncRNA and protein–RNA interaction networks from large-scale CLIP-Seq data. Nucleic Acids Research , 42(D1):D92–D97, December 2013

    2013

  32. [40]

    The genotype-tissue expression (gt ex) project

    John Lonsdale et al. The genotype-tissue expression (gt ex) project. Nature Genetics , 45(6):580–585, May 2013

    2013

  33. [41]

    The Reactome Pathway Knowledgebase 2024

    Marija Milacic et al. The Reactome Pathway Knowledgebase 2024. Nucleic Acids Research , 52(D1):D672–D678, November 2023

    2024

  34. [42]

    oborel/obo-relations: 2023-08-18 release

    Chris Mungall et al. oborel/obo-relations: 2023-08-18 release. Available at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo. 8263469, August 2023

    2023 doi

  35. [43]

    Uberon, an integrative mult i- species anatomy ontology

    Christopher J Mungall et al. Uberon, an integrative mult i- species anatomy ontology. Genome Biology , 13(1):R5, 2012

    2012

  36. [44]

    D. A. Natale et al. The protein ontology: a structured representation of protein forms and complexes. Nucleic Acids Research, 39(Database):D539–D545, October 2010

    2010

  37. [45]

    Needleman and Christian D

    Saul B. Needleman and Christian D. Wunsch. A general method applicable to the search for similarities in the amino acid sequence of two proteins. Journal of Molecular Biology, 48(3):443–453, 1970

    1970

  38. [46]

    Neo4j - the world’s leading graph database

    Neo4j. Neo4j - the world’s leading graph database. Available at http://neo4j.org/, 2012

    2012

  39. [47]

    Paraskevopoulou et al

    Maria D. Paraskevopoulou et al. DIANA-microT web server v5.0: service integration into miRNA functional analysis workflows. Nucleic Acids Research , 41(W1):W169–W173, May 2013

    2013

  40. [48]

    The pathway ontology – updates and applications

    Victoria Petri et al. The pathway ontology – updates and applications. Journal of Biomedical Semantics , 5(1):7, 2014

    2014

  41. [49]

    DisGeNET: a comprehensive platform integrating information on human disease-associated gene s and variants

    Janet Pi˜ nero et al. DisGeNET: a comprehensive platform integrating information on human disease-associated gene s and variants. Nucleic Acids Research , 45(D1):D833–D839, October 2016

    2016

  42. [50]

    PTEN ceRNA networks in human cancer

    Laura Poliseno and Pier Paolo Pandolfi. PTEN ceRNA networks in human cancer. Methods, 77-78:41–50, 2015. PTEN Function Methods

    2015

  43. [51]

    Robinson et al

    Peter N. Robinson et al. The human phenotype ontology: A tool for annotating and analyzing human hereditary disease. The American Journal of Human Genetics , 83(5):610–615, November 2008

    2008

  44. [52]

    PhenomiR: a knowledgebase for microRNA expression in diseases and biological processes

    Andreas Ruepp et al. PhenomiR: a knowledgebase for microRNA expression in diseases and biological processes. Genome Biology , 11(1), January 2010

    2010

  45. [53]

    Salzberg

    Steven L. Salzberg. Open questions: How many genes do we have? BMC Biology , 16(1), August 2018

    2018

  46. [54]

    Clo: The cell line ontology

    Sirarat Sarntivijai et al. Clo: The cell line ontology. Journal of Biomedical Semantics , 5(1):37, 2014

    2014

  47. [55]

    Genenames.org: the HGNC resources in 2023

    Ruth L Seal et al. Genenames.org: the HGNC resources in 2023. Nucleic Acids Research , 51(D1):D1003–D1009, October 2022

    2023

  48. [56]

    S. T. Sherry. dbSNP: the NCBI database of genetic variation. Nucleic Acids Research , 29(1):308–311, January 2001

    2001

  49. [57]

    Nci thesaurus: A semantic model integrating cancer-related clinical and molecular information

    Nicholas Sioutos et al. Nci thesaurus: A semantic model integrating cancer-related clinical and molecular information. Journal of Biomedical Informatics , 40(1):30–43, February 2007

    2007

  50. [58]

    COSMIC: a curated database of somatic variants and clinical data for cancer

    Zbyslaw Sondka et al. COSMIC: a curated database of somatic variants and clinical data for cancer. Nucleic Acids Research, 52(D1):D1210–D1217, November 2023

    2023

  51. [59]

    Toward Distributed Use of Large- Scale Ontologies

    William Swartout et al. Toward Distributed Use of Large- Scale Ontologies. In 1997 AAAI Spring Symposium , pages 138–148, 01 1997

    1997

  52. [60]

    Rnacentral 2021: secondary structure integration, improved sequence search and new member databases

    Blake A Sweeney et al. Rnacentral 2021: secondary structure integration, improved sequence search and new member databases. Nucleic Acids Research , 49(D1):D212–D220, October 2020

    2021

  53. [61]

    The STRING database in 2023: protein–protein association networks and functiona l enrichment analyses for any sequenced genome of interest

    Damian Szklarczyk et al. The STRING database in 2023: protein–protein association networks and functiona l enrichment analyses for any sequenced genome of interest. Nucleic Acids Research , 51(D1):D638–D646, November 2022

    2023

  54. [62]

    LINE: Large-scale Information Network Embedding

    Jian Tang et al. LINE: Large-scale Information Network Embedding. In Proc. of the 24th Int’l Conf. on World Wide Web , page 1067–1077, 2015

    2015

  55. [63]

    Depth-first search and linear graph algorithms

    Robert Tarjan. Depth-first search and linear graph algorithms. In 12th Annual Symposium on Switching and Automata Theory (swat 1971) , pages 114–121, 1971

    1971

  56. [64]

    Thul and Cecilia Lindskog

    Peter J. Thul and Cecilia Lindskog. The human protein atlas: A spatial map of the human proteome. Protein 12 Cavalleri et al. Science, 27(1):233–244, October 2017

    2017

  57. [65]

    RNA Knowledge-Graph analysis through homogeneous embedding methods

    Francesco Torgano et al. RNA Knowledge-Graph analysis through homogeneous embedding methods. Bioinformatics Advances, page vbaf109, 05 2025

    2025

  58. [66]

    Knowledge graph completion via complex tensor factorization

    Th´ eo Trouillon et al. Knowledge graph completion via complex tensor factorization. Journal of Machine Learning Research (JMLR), 18(130):1–38, 2017

    2017

  59. [67]

    Mondo: Unifying diseases for the world, by the world

    Nicole A Vasilevsky et al. Mondo: Unifying diseases for the world, by the world. Preprint at http://dx.doi.org/10. 1101/2022.04.13.22273750, April 2022

    2022

  60. [68]

    Network tuned multiple rank aggregation and applications to gene ranking

    Wenhui Wang et al. Network tuned multiple rank aggregation and applications to gene ranking. BMC Bioinformatics, 16(S1), January 2015

    2015

  61. [69]

    The GeneMANIA prediction server: biological network integration for gene prioritiz ation and predicting gene function

    David Warde-Farley et al. The GeneMANIA prediction server: biological network integration for gene prioritiz ation and predicting gene function. Nucleic Acids Research, 38(2 supplement):W214–W220, June 2010

    2010

  62. [70]

    DNABERT-2: Efficient Foundation Model and Benchmark For Multi-Species Genome, 2023

    Zhihan Zhou et al. DNABERT-2: Efficient Foundation Model and Benchmark For Multi-Species Genome, 2023

    2023

  63. [71]

    query":

    Yumin Zhu et al. POSTAR2: deciphering the post- transcriptional regulatory logics. Nucleic Acids Research , 47(D1):D203–D211, September 2018. RNA-KG v2.0: An RNA-centered Knowledge Graph with Properties Supplementary material Emanuele Cavalleri, Paolo Perlasca, Marco Mesiti 1 ...

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.