Back

Challenges and Opportunities in Single-Sample Network Modeling

Kuijjer, M. L.; De Marzio, M.; Glass, K.

2026-03-02 systems biology
10.64898/2026.02.27.708608 bioRxiv
Show abstract

1Analysis of biological networks can provide unprecedented insights into the mechanisms underlying disease. Although many methods have been developed to estimate biological networks, these approaches typically use multiple experimental samples to estimate a single aggregate network, which fails to capture population-level heterogeneity. Recently, several methods have been developed that overcome this limitation by inferring networks for individual samples, i.e. single-sample networks. However, each approach for inferring single-sample networks has been formulated differently, making it challenging to compare them. To address this issue, we re-cast the mathematics of several single-sample network methods using common variables. We then systematically explore the parameters, caveats, and underlying assumptions made by each method and examine how these differences impact single-sample network prediction. Our analyses point to a critical trade-off that occurs when trying to simultaneously predict network edges that are both shared across samples as well as edges that are specific to a given sample. For example, the mathematics of both SWEET and BONOBO includes a scale factor that drives the weights of edges in the predicted single-sample networks toward a background network. The result is that, although networks predicted by these methods tend to have the highest accuracy, this often comes at the cost of very low specificity, an important caveat since the primary goal of sample-specific network modeling is to obtain networks that are specific to each input sample. In contrast, SSN estimates the most specific but least accurate networks, while LIONESS straddles these domains, with an accuracy almost as high as SWEET and BONOBO and a specificity almost as high as SSN. Overall, our analyses highlight some of the broader challenges in this emerging field. However, they also point to important methodological synergies, providing an opportunity to create a common framework that can be used to improve single-sample network inference.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Bioinformatics
1061 papers in training set
Top 1%
22.7%
2
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 2%
12.6%
3
Cell Systems
167 papers in training set
Top 1%
8.5%
4
Genome Research
409 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
4.2%
5
Bioinformatics Advances
184 papers in training set
Top 1%
4.0%
50% of probability mass above
6
Patterns
70 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.6%
7
Briefings in Bioinformatics
326 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.6%
8
BMC Bioinformatics
383 papers in training set
Top 3%
3.1%
9
npj Systems Biology and Applications
99 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
2.9%
10
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 44%
2.8%
11
Frontiers in Genetics
197 papers in training set
Top 3%
2.1%
12
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2130 papers in training set
Top 27%
2.1%
13
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 56%
1.5%
14
Cell Reports
1338 papers in training set
Top 27%
1.3%
15
IEEE Transactions on Computational Biology and Bioinformatics
17 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.3%
16
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 56%
1.2%
17
Journal of The Royal Society Interface
189 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.2%
18
Nature Computational Science
50 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
1.2%
19
iScience
1063 papers in training set
Top 21%
1.2%
20
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 49%
1.2%
21
Physical Biology
43 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.1%
22
Journal of Biomedical Informatics
45 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.0%
23
Epidemics
104 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
24
Biostatistics
21 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.5%
25
PRX Life
34 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.5%
26
Communications Biology
886 papers in training set
Top 32%
0.5%
27
IEEE/ACM Transactions on Computational Biology and Bioinformatics
32 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.5%
28
GENETICS
189 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.5%