Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15998909›Full record

ArticleGenome research2005

Assessing the limits of genomic data integration for predicting protein networks.

Long J Lu, Yu Xia, Alberto Paccanaro, Haiyuan Yu, Mark Gerstein

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genome research, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 74 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
74citing 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

74 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Mapping global protein contacts.Science (New York, N.Y.) · 2019
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Proteomic approaches and identification of novel therapeutic targets for alcoholism.Neuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology · 2014
    Review
  14. Structural bioinformatics of the interactome.Annual review of biophysics · 2014
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article

14 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

5 authors.

Long J LuDepartment of Molecular Biophysics and Biochemistry, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut 06520, USA.
Yu Xia
Alberto Paccanaro
Haiyuan Yu
Mark Gerstein

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Genomic data integration--the process of statistically combining diverse sources of information from functional genomics experiments to make large-scale predictions--is becoming increasingly prevalent. One might expect that this process should become progressively more powerful with the integration of more evidence. Here, we explore the limits of genomic data integration, assessing the degree to which predictive power increases with the addition of more features. We focus on a predictive context that has been extensively investigated and benchmarked in the past-the prediction of protein-protein interactions in yeast. We start by using a simple Naive Bayes classifier for integrating diverse sources of genomic evidence, ranging from coexpression relationships to similar phylogenetic profiles. We expand the number of features considered for prediction to 16, significantly more than previous studies. Overall, we observe a small, but measurable improvement in prediction performance over previous benchmarks, based on four strong features. This allows us to identify new yeast interactions with high confidence. It also allows us to quantitatively assess the inter-relations amongst different genomic features. It is known that subtle correlations and dependencies between features can confound the strength of interaction predictions. We investigate this issue in detail through calculating mutual information. To our surprise, we find no appreciable statistical dependence between the many possible pairs of features. We further explore feature dependencies by comparing the performance of our simple Naive Bayes classifier with a boosted version of the same classifier, which is fairly resistant to feature dependence. We find that boosting does not improve performance, indicating that, at least for prediction purposes, our genomic features are essentially independent. In summary, by integrating a few (i.e., four) good features, we approach the maximal predictive power of current genomic data integration; moreover, this limitation does not reflect (potentially removable) inter-relationships between the features.

Indexed as

Computational BiologyProtein Interaction MappingAlgorithmsBayes TheoremGenomicsROC Curve

Identifiers

PMID15998909
PMCPMC1172038

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.