Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15231746›Full record

ArticleGenome research2004

Evolution and topology in the yeast protein interaction network.

Stefan Wuchty

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Genome research, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 58 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
58citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

58 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. The era of big data: Genome-scale modelling meets machine learning.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2020
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Involvement of microRNA families in cancer.Nucleic acids research · 2012
    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

1 author.

Stefan WuchtyDepartment of Physics, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, Indiana 46556, USA. swuchty@nd.edu

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The integrity of the yeast protein-protein interaction network is maintained by a few highly connected proteins, or hubs, which hold the numerous less-connected proteins together. The structural importance and the increased essentiality of these proteins suggest that they are likely to be conserved in evolution, implying a strong relationship between the number of interactions and their evolutionary distance to its orthologs in other organisms. The existence of this coherence was recently reported to strongly depend on the quality of the protein interaction and orthologs data. Here, we introduce a novel method, the evolutionary excess retention (ER), allowing us to uncover a robust and strong correlation between the conservation, essentiality, and connectivity of a yeast protein. We conclude that the relevance of the hubs for the network integrity is simultaneously reflected by a considerable probability of simultaneously being evolutionarily conserved and essential, an observation that does not have an equivalent for nonessential proteins. Providing a thorough assessment of the impact noisy and incomplete data have on our findings, we conclude that our results are largely insensitive to the quality of the utilized data.

Indexed as

Evolution, MolecularProtein Interaction MappingAnimalsArabidopsis ProteinsCaenorhabditis elegans ProteinsDrosophila ProteinsHumansMiceProteinsSaccharomyces cerevisiae ProteinsArabidopsis ProteinsCaenorhabditis elegans ProteinsDrosophila ProteinsProteinsSaccharomyces cerevisiae Proteins

Identifiers

PMID15231746
PMCPMC442146

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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 OpenQuestion graph.