Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22844541›Full record

ArticlePloS one2012

Effect of reference genome selection on the performance of computational methods for genome-wide protein-protein interaction prediction.

Vijaykumar Yogesh Muley, Akash Ranjan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2012. 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. The EcoCyc database (2025).EcoSal Plus · 2025
    Review
  2. Article
  3. The EcoCyc Database (2023).EcoSal Plus · 2023
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. The EcoCyc Database.EcoSal Plus · 2018
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. The EcoCyc Database.EcoSal Plus · 2014
    Article
  13. Practical aspects of protein co-evolution.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2014
    Review
  14. Curation accuracy of model organism databases.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2014
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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.

Vijaykumar Yogesh MuleyComputational and Functional Genomics Group, Centre for DNA Fingerprinting and Diagnostics, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, India.
Akash Ranjan

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRecent progress in computational methods for predicting physical and functional protein-protein interactions has provided new insights into the complexity of biological processes. Most of these methods assume that functionally interacting proteins are likely to have a shared evolutionary history. This history can be traced out for the protein pairs of a query genome by correlating different evolutionary aspects of their homologs in multiple genomes known as the reference genomes. These methods include phylogenetic profiling, gene neighborhood and co-occurrence of the orthologous protein coding genes in the same cluster or operon. These are collectively known as genomic context methods. On the other hand a method called mirrortree is based on the similarity of phylogenetic trees between two interacting proteins. Comprehensive performance analyses of these methods have been frequently reported in literature. However, very few studies provide insight into the effect of reference genome selection on detection of meaningful protein interactions.

methodsWe analyzed the performance of four methods and their variants to understand the effect of reference genome selection on prediction efficacy. We used six sets of reference genomes, sampled in accordance with phylogenetic diversity and relationship between organisms from 565 bacteria. We used Escherichia coli as a model organism and the gold standard datasets of interacting proteins reported in DIP, EcoCyc and KEGG databases to compare the performance of the prediction methods.

conclusionsHigher performance for predicting protein-protein interactions was achievable even with 100-150 bacterial genomes out of 565 genomes. Inclusion of archaeal genomes in the reference genome set improves performance. We find that in order to obtain a good performance, it is better to sample few genomes of related genera of prokaryotes from the large number of available genomes. Moreover, such a sampling allows for selecting 50-100 genomes for comparable accuracy of predictions when computational resources are limited.

Indexed as

GenomicsMultigene FamilyPhylogenyProtein Interaction MappingReference StandardsSequence Homology, Nucleic Acid

Identifiers

PMID22844541
PMCPMC3406042

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.