Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17087821›Full record

ArticleBMC bioinformatics2006

Evaluation of clustering algorithms for protein-protein interaction networks.

Sylvain Brohée, Jacques van Helden

Abstract readComparative StudyEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 326 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
326citing 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

326 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Large-scale mouse mutagenesis identifies novel genes affecting vertebral anatomy.Mammalian genome : official journal of the International Mammalian Genome Society · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Frontiers in immunology · 2026
    Article
  11. Proteome-Guided Drug Target Discovery for Periodontitis.Journal of clinical periodontology · 2026
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

266 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

2 authors.

Sylvain BrohéeService de Conformation des Macromolécules Biologiques et de Bioinformatique, Université Libre de Bruxelles, CP 263, Campus Plaine, Bd, du Triomphe, B-1050 Bruxelles, Belgium. sylvain@scmbb.ulb.ac.be
Jacques van Helden

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundProtein interactions are crucial components of all cellular processes. Recently, high-throughput methods have been developed to obtain a global description of the interactome (the whole network of protein interactions for a given organism). In 2002, the yeast interactome was estimated to contain up to 80,000 potential interactions. This estimate is based on the integration of data sets obtained by various methods (mass spectrometry, two-hybrid methods, genetic studies). High-throughput methods are known, however, to yield a non-negligible rate of false positives, and to miss a fraction of existing interactions. The interactome can be represented as a graph where nodes correspond with proteins and edges with pairwise interactions. In recent years clustering methods have been developed and applied in order to extract relevant modules from such graphs. These algorithms require the specification of parameters that may drastically affect the results. In this paper we present a comparative assessment of four algorithms: Markov Clustering (MCL), Restricted Neighborhood Search Clustering (RNSC), Super Paramagnetic Clustering (SPC), and Molecular Complex Detection (MCODE).

resultsA test graph was built on the basis of 220 complexes annotated in the MIPS database. To evaluate the robustness to false positives and false negatives, we derived 41 altered graphs by randomly removing edges from or adding edges to the test graph in various proportions. Each clustering algorithm was applied to these graphs with various parameter settings, and the clusters were compared with the annotated complexes. We analyzed the sensitivity of the algorithms to the parameters and determined their optimal parameter values. We also evaluated their robustness to alterations of the test graph. We then applied the four algorithms to six graphs obtained from high-throughput experiments and compared the resulting clusters with the annotated complexes.

conclusionThis analysis shows that MCL is remarkably robust to graph alterations. In the tests of robustness, RNSC is more sensitive to edge deletion but less sensitive to the use of suboptimal parameter values. The other two algorithms are clearly weaker under most conditions. The analysis of high-throughput data supports the superiority of MCL for the extraction of complexes from interaction networks.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsCluster AnalysisProtein Interaction MappingSoftware ValidationComputational BiologyComputer GraphicsDatabases, ProteinMarkov ChainsMass SpectrometryProtein BindingSaccharomyces cerevisiae ProteinsTwo-Hybrid System TechniquesSaccharomyces cerevisiae Proteins

Identifiers

PMID17087821
PMCPMC1637120

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.