ArticleBMC bioinformatics2012
Cluster-based assessment of protein-protein interaction confidence.
Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Overview of methods for characterization and visualization of a protein-protein interaction network in a multi-omics integration context.Frontiers in molecular biosciences · 2022Review
- Genome-wide functional association networks: background, data & state-of-the-art resources.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2020Review
- Proteome Analyses RevealACS omega · 2020Article
- Modelling Self-Organization in Complex Networks Via a Brain-Inspired Network Automata Theory Improves Link Reliability in Protein Interactomes.Scientific reports · 2018Article
- Network and Pathway Analysis of Toxicogenomics Data.Frontiers in genetics · 2018Article
- Analyzing and interpreting genome data at the network level with ConsensusPathDB.Nature protocols · 2016Article
- Using prior knowledge from cellular pathways and molecular networks for diagnostic specimen classification.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2016Article
- Development and use of the Cytoscape app GFD-Net for measuring semantic dissimilarity of gene networks.F1000Research · 2014Article
- The ConsensusPathDB interaction database: 2013 update.Nucleic acids research · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundProtein-protein interaction networks are key to a systems-level understanding of cellular biology. However, interaction data can contain a considerable fraction of false positives. Several methods have been proposed to assess the confidence of individual interactions. Most of them require the integration of additional data like protein expression and interaction homology information. While being certainly useful, such additional data are not always available and may introduce additional bias and ambiguity.
resultsWe propose a novel, network topology based interaction confidence assessment method called CAPPIC (cluster-based assessment of protein-protein interaction confidence). It exploits the network's inherent modular architecture for assessing the confidence of individual interactions. Our method determines algorithmic parameters intrinsically and does not require any parameter input or reference sets for confidence scoring.
conclusionsOn the basis of five yeast and two human physical interactome maps inferred using different techniques, we show that CAPPIC reliably assesses interaction confidence and its performance compares well to other approaches that are also based on network topology. The confidence score correlates with the agreement in localization and biological process annotations of interacting proteins. Moreover, it corroborates experimental evidence of physical interactions. Our method is not limited to physical interactome maps as we exemplify with a large yeast genetic interaction network. An implementation of CAPPIC is available at http://intscore.molgen.mpg.de.
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.