Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17547772›Full record

ArticleBMC systems biology2007

Understanding network concepts in modules.

Jun Dong, Steve Horvath

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC systems biology, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 205 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
205citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

205 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Estimating metabolite networks subject to dietary preferences and lifestyle.Metabolomics : Official journal of the Metabolomic Society · 2025
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. WGCNA-based analysis ofFrontiers in veterinary science · 2025
    Article
  20. Article

145 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.

Jun DongDepartment of Human Genetics and Department of Biostatistics, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA. jundong@ucla.edu
Steve Horvath

Funding

Quantitative Biology CoreU19AI063603 · NIAID · SCRIPPS RESEARCH INSTITUTE, THE · PI SCHORK, NICHOLAS JOSEPH · 2004 to 2015
$26.4M
UCLA NINDS/NIMH Microarray CenterU24NS043562 · NINDS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI NELSON, STANLEY F. · 2002 to 2004
$2.6M
NIAID NIH HHS 1U19AI063603-01NINDS NIH HHS 1U24NS043562-01
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNetwork concepts are increasingly used in biology and genetics. For example, the clustering coefficient has been used to understand network architecture; the connectivity (also known as degree) has been used to screen for cancer targets; and the topological overlap matrix has been used to define modules and to annotate genes. Dozens of potentially useful network concepts are known from graph theory.

resultsHere we study network concepts in special types of networks, which we refer to as approximately factorizable networks. In these networks, the pairwise connection strength (adjacency) between 2 network nodes can be factored into node specific contributions, named node 'conformity'. The node conformity turns out to be highly related to the connectivity. To provide a formalism for relating network concepts to each other, we define three types of network concepts: fundamental-, conformity-based-, and approximate conformity-based concepts. Fundamental concepts include the standard definitions of connectivity, density, centralization, heterogeneity, clustering coefficient, and topological overlap. The approximate conformity-based analogs of fundamental network concepts have several theoretical advantages. First, they allow one to derive simple relationships between seemingly disparate networks concepts. For example, we derive simple relationships between the clustering coefficient, the heterogeneity, the density, the centralization, and the topological overlap. The second advantage of approximate conformity-based network concepts is that they allow one to show that fundamental network concepts can be approximated by simple functions of the connectivity in module networks.

conclusionUsing protein-protein interaction, gene co-expression, and simulated data, we show that a) many networks comprised of module nodes are approximately factorizable and b) in these types of networks, simple relationships exist between seemingly disparate network concepts. Our results are implemented in freely available R software code, which can be downloaded from the following webpage: http://www.genetics.ucla.edu/labs/horvath/ModuleConformity/ModuleNetworks.

Indexed as

Computer SimulationGene Regulatory NetworksMetabolic Networks and PathwaysModels, BiologicalAnimalsCluster AnalysisDrosophilaGene ExpressionProteinsTerminology as TopicYeastsProteins

Identifiers

PMID17547772
PMCPMC3238286

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.