ArticleJournal of clinical bioinformatics2013
Comparative analysis of differential network modularity in tissue specific normal and cancer protein interaction networks.
Article in Journal of clinical bioinformatics, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- BDDN: bayesian dynamic differential network analysis in cancer proteomics.BMC bioinformatics · 2026Article
- Overview of methods for characterization and visualization of a protein-protein interaction network in a multi-omics integration context.Frontiers in molecular biosciences · 2022Review
- Sparse Regression in Cancer Genomics: Comparing Variable Selection and Predictions in Real World Data.Cancer informatics · 2021Article
- Systematic Analysis of Differential Expression Profile in Rheumatoid Arthritis Chondrocytes Using Next-Generation Sequencing and Bioinformatics Approaches.International journal of medical sciences · 2018Article
- Genetic tests in major psychiatric disorders-integrating molecular medicine with clinical psychiatry-why is it so difficult?Translational psychiatry · 2017Review
- Graph-theoretical model of global human interactome reveals enhanced long-range communicability in cancer networks.PloS one · 2017Article
- Computational Reconstruction of NFκB Pathway Interaction Mechanisms during Prostate Cancer.PLoS computational biology · 2016Article
- Next-generation clinical trials: Novel strategies to address the challenge of tumor molecular heterogeneity.Molecular oncology · 2015Review
- Network and matrix analysis of the respiratory disease interactome.BMC systems biology · 2014Article
- Gene regulatory networks and their applications: understanding biological and medical problems in terms of networks.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2014Review
- Gene expression correlation for cancer diagnosis: a pilot study.BioMed research international · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLarge scale understanding of complex and dynamic alterations in cellular and subcellular levels during cancer in contrast to normal condition has facilitated the emergence of sophisticated systemic approaches like network biology in recent times. As most biological networks show modular properties, the analysis of differential modularity between normal and cancer protein interaction networks can be a good way to understand cancer more significantly. Two aspects of biological network modularity e.g. detection of molecular complexes (potential modules or clusters) and identification of crucial nodes forming the overlapping modules have been considered in this regard.
methodsIn the current study, the computational analysis of previously published protein interaction networks (PINs) has been conducted to identify the molecular complexes and crucial nodes of the networks. Protein molecules involved in ten major cancer signal transduction pathways were used to construct the networks based on expression data of five tissues e.g. bone, breast, colon, kidney and liver in both normal and cancer conditions. MCODE (molecular complex detection) and ModuLand methods have been used to identify the molecular complexes and crucial nodes of the networks respectively.
resultsIn case of all tissues, cancer PINs show higher level of clustering (formation of molecular complexes) than the normal ones. In contrast, lower level modular overlapping is found in cancer PINs than the normal ones. Thus a proposition can be made regarding the formation of some giant nodes in the cancer networks with very high degree and resulting in reduced overlapping among the network modules though the predicted molecular complex numbers are higher in cancer conditions.
conclusionThe study predicts some major molecular complexes that might act as the important regulators in cancer progression. The crucial nodes identified in this study can be potential drug targets to combat cancer.
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.