Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20798171›Full record

ArticleBioinformatics (Oxford, England)2010

Measuring the physical cohesiveness of proteins using physical interaction enrichment.

Iziah Edwin Sama, Martijn A Huynen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Bioinformatics (Oxford, England), 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing 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

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
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.

Iziah Edwin SamaCentre for Molecular and Biomolecular Informatics, Nijmegen Centre for Molecular Life Sciences, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. i.sama@cmbi.ru.nl
Martijn A Huynen

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

motivationProtein-protein interaction (PPI) networks are a valuable resource for the interpretation of genomics data. However, such networks have interaction enrichment biases for proteins that are often studied. These biases skew quantitative results from comparing PPI networks with genomics data. Here, we introduce an approach named physical interaction enrichment (PIE) to eliminate these biases. METHODOLOGY: PIE employs a normalization that ensures equal node degree (edge) distribution of a test set and of the random networks it is compared with. It quantifies whether a set of proteins have more interactions between themselves than proteins in random networks, and can therewith be regarded as physically cohesive.

resultsAmong other datasets, we applied PIE to genetic morbid disease (GMD) genes and to genes whose expression is induced upon infection with human-metapneumovirus (HMPV). Both sets contain proteins that are often studied and that have relatively many interactions in the PPI network. Although interactions between proteins of both sets are found to be overrepresented in PPI networks, the GMD proteins are not more likely to interact with each other than random proteins when this overrepresentation is taken into account. In contrast the HMPV-induced genes, representing a biologically more coherent set, encode proteins that do tend to interact with each other and can be used to predict new HMPV-induced genes. By handling biases in PPI networks, PIE can be a valuable tool to quantify the degree to which a set of genes are involved in the same biological process.

Indexed as

GenomicsHumansMetapneumovirusProtein Interaction MappingProteinsProteins

Identifiers

PMID20798171
PMCPMC2958743

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.