ArticleBioinformation2009
Predicting highly-connected hubs in protein interaction networks by QSAR and biological data descriptors.
Article in Bioinformation, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- A systems biology approach to the analysis of subset-specific responses to lipopolysaccharide in dendritic cells.PloS one · 2014Article
- Predicting the binding patterns of hub proteins: a study using yeast protein interaction networks.PloS one · 2013Article
- Features analysis for identification of date and party hubs in protein interaction network of Saccharomyces Cerevisiae.BMC systems biology · 2010Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
unlabelledHub proteins (those engaged in most physical interactions in a protein interaction network (PIN) have recently gained much research interest due to their essential role in mediating cellular processes and their potential therapeutic value. It is straightforward to identify hubs if the underlying PIN is experimentally determined; however, theoretical hub prediction remains a very challenging task, as physicochemical properties that differentiate hubs from less connected proteins remain mostly uncharacterized. To adequately distinguish hubs from non-hub proteins we have utilized over 1300 protein descriptors, some of which represent QSAR (quantitative structure-activity relationship) parameters, and some reflect sequence-derived characteristics of proteins including domain composition and functional annotations. Those protein descriptors, together with available protein interaction data have been processed by a machine learning method (boosting trees) and resulted in the development of hub classifiers that are capable of predicting highly interacting proteins for four model organisms: Escherichia coli, Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Drosophila melanogaster and Homo sapiens. More importantly, through the analyses of the most relevant protein descriptors, we are able to demonstrate that hub proteins not only share certain common physicochemical and structural characteristics that make them different from non-hub counterparts, but they also exhibit species-specific characteristics that should be taken into account when analyzing different PINs. The developed prediction models can be used for determining highly interacting proteins in the four studied species to assist future proteomics experiments and PIN analyses. AVAILABILITY: THE SOURCE CODE AND EXECUTABLE PROGRAM OF THE HUB CLASSIFIER ARE AVAILABLE FOR DOWNLOAD AT: http://www.cnbi2.ca/hub-analysis/
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.