Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17845715›Full record

ArticleGenome biology2007

Coverage and error models of protein-protein interaction data by directed graph analysis.

Tony Chiang, Denise Scholtens, Deepayan Sarkar, Robert Gentleman, Wolfgang Huber

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genome biology, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing 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

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. High throughput interaction data reveals degree conservation of hub proteins.Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing. Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing · 2009
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Modeling synthetic lethality.Genome biology · 2008
    Article
  16. A portrait of copy-number polymorphism in Drosophila melanogaster.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2007
    Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
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.

Tony ChiangEMBL, European Bioinformatics Institute, Wellcome Trust Genome Campus, Hinxton, Cambridge, CB10 1SD, UK. tchiang@ebi.ac.uk
Denise Scholtens
Deepayan Sarkar
Robert Gentleman
Wolfgang Huber

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Using a directed graph model for bait to prey systems and a multinomial error model, we assessed the error statistics in all published large-scale datasets for Saccharomyces cerevisiae and characterized them by three traits: the set of tested interactions, artifacts that lead to false-positive or false-negative observations, and estimates of the stochastic error rates that affect the data. These traits provide a prerequisite for the estimation of the protein interactome and its modules.

Indexed as

Protein Interaction MappingAlgorithmsComputational BiologyComputer GraphicsDatabases, ProteinFungal ProteinsGene Expression Regulation, FungalGenomicsModels, BiologicalProteomeProteomicsRegression AnalysisReproducibility of ResultsSaccharomyces cerevisiaeStochastic ProcessesFungal ProteinsProteome

Identifiers

PMID17845715
PMCPMC2375024

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.