A Framework for Benchmarking Pathway Reconstruction Algorithms
Neha TalluriiD, Tristan Figueroa-ReidiD, Justin HiemstraiD, Chris S. MagnanoiD, Adam ShedivyiD, Nistha PandaiD, Yancheng LiuiD, Sumedha Sanjeev, Oliver Faulkner AndersoniD, Altaf BarelviiD, Aden O'Brien, Olivia T JohnsoniD, James A. HaddadiD, Spencer HalbergiD, Akniyet NurboliD, Iris JaniD, Mahunan DegbeloiD, Daniel Nachreiner, Canek Llera-Magord, Gabriel HowlandiD, Grace H LiiD, Anna RitziD, Anthony GitteriD
Abstract
Cells coordinate diverse biological processes through interactions among thousands of molecules, but mapping these interactions comprehensively and systematically remains an open problem. Pathway reconstruction algorithms address this problem by linking molecules of interest, identified from high-throughput omics experiments, using prior knowledge encoded as background interaction networks. This process recovers intermediate molecules and interactions that were not directly measured in the experimental data but plausibly connect the observed molecules. It generates testable hypotheses about interactions that drive cell behavior and informs the choice of follow-up experiments. Many algorithms have been created over decades, each optimizing different computational objectives and relying on different assumptions. The resulting heterogeneity has made benchmarking challenging, limiting systematic comparisons. Therefore, selecting an algorithm for a given biological context remains a non-trivial and poorly informed task. This registered report presents a large-scale benchmark of pathway reconstruction algorithms, evaluating 14 algorithms across 822 datasets from four biological settings. To enable this benchmark, we introduce Signaling Pathway Reconstruction Analysis Streamliner (SPRAS), which standardizes algorithm inputs, outputs, and execution into a formal framework, enabling systematic comparison that was previously infeasible. We will assess each algorithm on reconstruction performance against gold standard pathways, algorithm similarity, and computational performance across different biological contexts. Together, these evaluations will provide quantitative evidence for understanding pathway reconstruction algorithm behavior and guiding algorithm selection.
02 /Specification & Classification
Click any tag to browse matching papers- Citations
- 0
- Research Focus
- Approach
Reproducibility ledger
Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.
Sign in to file a reproducibility report.
Related papers
- Automating parameter selection to avoid implausible biological pathway models
Chris S. Magnano, Anthony Gitter·npj Systems Biology and ApplicationsPeer-reviewed·Feb 23, 2021
- Augmenting Signaling Pathway Reconstructions
Tobias Rubel, Anna Ritz·ACM International Conference on Bioinformatics, Computational Biology, and Health Informatics (ACM-BCB)Peer-reviewed·Sep 21, 2020
- Growing DAGs: Optimization Functions for Pathway Reconstruction Algorithms
Tunç Başar Köse, Jiarong Li, Anna Ritz·bioRxiv·Jul 27, 2022
- Enumerating all possible biosynthetic pathways from metabolic networks
Aarthi Ravikrishnan, Meghana Nasre, Karthik Raman·Scientific ReportsPeer-reviewed·Jun 26, 2018
- Reverse-Engineering Biological Networks From Large Data Sets
Joseph L. Natale, David Hofmann, … Ilya M. Nemenman·bioRxiv·May 28, 2017
- Generalist method to reconstruct metabolic networks from multi-omics data at large-scale
Pavan Kumar S, Subasree Sridhar, … Nirav Bhatt·bioRxiv·Apr 6, 2026