Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16003372›Full record

ArticleNature biotechnology2005

Effect of sampling on topology predictions of protein-protein interaction networks.

Jing-Dong J Han, Denis Dupuy, Nicolas Bertin, Michael E Cusick, Marc Vidal

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Nature biotechnology, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 115 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
115citing 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

115 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Recent progress and future challenges in structure-based protein-protein interaction prediction.Molecular therapy : the journal of the American Society of Gene Therapy · 2025
    Review
  3. Review
  4. Simplicity within biological complexity.Bioinformatics advances · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Folding and Binding Kinetics of the Tandem of SH2 Domains from SHP2.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

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

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Jing-Dong J HanCenter for Cancer Systems Biology and Department of Cancer Biology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts 02115, USA.
Denis Dupuy
Nicolas Bertin
Michael E Cusick
Marc Vidal

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Currently available protein-protein interaction (PPI) network or 'interactome' maps, obtained with the yeast two-hybrid (Y2H) assay or by co-affinity purification followed by mass spectrometry (co-AP/MS), only cover a fraction of the complete PPI networks. These partial networks display scale-free topologies--most proteins participate in only a few interactions whereas a few proteins have many interaction partners. Here we analyze whether the scale-free topologies of the partial networks obtained from Y2H assays can be used to accurately infer the topology of complete interactomes. We generated four theoretical interaction networks of different topologies (random, exponential, power law, truncated normal). Partial sampling of these networks resulted in sub-networks with topological characteristics that were virtually indistinguishable from those of currently available Y2H-derived partial interactome maps. We conclude that given the current limited coverage levels, the observed scale-free topology of existing interactome maps cannot be confidently extrapolated to complete interactomes.

Indexed as

Computational BiologyProtein Interaction MappingProteomicsAnimalsComputer SimulationProteinsTwo-Hybrid System TechniquesProteins

Identifiers

PMID16003372

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.