Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21533211›Full record

ArticlePLoS computational biology2011

Network archaeology: uncovering ancient networks from present-day interactions.

Saket Navlakha, Carl Kingsford

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS computational biology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing 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

23 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. PhyloSystemX: Enhancing the Analysis of Interaction Networks.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. A probabilistic model of neutral and selective dynamics of protein network evolution.Journal of computational biology : a journal of computational molecular cell biology · 2013
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Parsimonious reconstruction of network evolution.Algorithms for molecular biology : AMB · 2012
    Article
  17. How networks change with time.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2012
    Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. 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.

Saket NavlakhaDepartment of Computer Science and Center for Bioinformatics and Computational Biology, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland, USA.
Carl Kingsford

Funding

Accurate Computational Detection of Influenza ReassortmentsR21AI085376 · NIAID · UNIV OF MARYLAND, COLLEGE PARK · PI KINGSFORD, CARLETON LEE · 2010 to 2011
$369k
NIAID NIH HHS 1R21AI085376NIAID NIH HHS R21 AI085376
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

What proteins interacted in a long-extinct ancestor of yeast? How have different members of a protein complex assembled together over time? Our ability to answer such questions has been limited by the unavailability of ancestral protein-protein interaction (PPI) networks. To overcome this limitation, we propose several novel algorithms to reconstruct the growth history of a present-day network. Our likelihood-based method finds a probable previous state of the graph by applying an assumed growth model backwards in time. This approach retains node identities so that the history of individual nodes can be tracked. Using this methodology, we estimate protein ages in the yeast PPI network that are in good agreement with sequence-based estimates of age and with structural features of protein complexes. Further, by comparing the quality of the inferred histories for several different growth models (duplication-mutation with complementarity, forest fire, and preferential attachment), we provide additional evidence that a duplication-based model captures many features of PPI network growth better than models designed to mimic social network growth. From the reconstructed history, we model the arrival time of extant and ancestral interactions and predict that complexes have significantly re-wired over time and that new edges tend to form within existing complexes. We also hypothesize a distribution of per-protein duplication rates, track the change of the network's clustering coefficient, and predict paralogous relationships between extant proteins that are likely to be complementary to the relationships inferred using sequence alone. Finally, we infer plausible parameters for the model, thereby predicting the relative probability of various evolutionary events. The success of these algorithms indicates that parts of the history of the yeast PPI are encoded in its present-day form.

Indexed as

Evolution, MolecularAlgorithmsAnimalsCluster AnalysisComputational BiologyComputer SimulationFungal ProteinsGene DeletionGenes, FungalModels, TheoreticalProbabilityProtein Interaction MappingReproducibility of ResultsSaccharomyces cerevisiaeTime FactorsFungal Proteins

Identifiers

PMID21533211
PMCPMC3077358

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.