ArticlePloS one2013
Protein complex identification by integrating protein-protein interaction evidence from multiple sources.
Article in PloS one, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Identifying Protein Complexes from Dynamic Temporal Interval Protein-Protein Interaction Networks.BioMed research international · 2019Article
- Reconstruction of the Protein-Protein Interaction Network for Protein Complexes Identification by Walking on the Protein Pair Fingerprints Similarity Network.Frontiers in genetics · 2018Article
- Protein complex prediction for large protein protein interaction networks with the Core&Peel method.BMC bioinformatics · 2016Article
- Conserved abundance and topological features in chromatin-remodeling protein interaction networks.EMBO reports · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundUnderstanding protein complexes is important for understanding the science of cellular organization and function. Many computational methods have been developed to identify protein complexes from experimentally obtained protein-protein interaction (PPI) networks. However, interaction information obtained experimentally can be unreliable and incomplete. Reconstructing these PPI networks with PPI evidences from other sources can improve protein complex identification.
resultsWe combined PPI information from 6 different sources and obtained a reconstructed PPI network for yeast through machine learning. Some popular protein complex identification methods were then applied to detect yeast protein complexes using the new PPI networks. Our evaluation indicates that protein complex identification algorithms using the reconstructed PPI network significantly outperform ones on experimentally verified PPI networks.
conclusionsWe conclude that incorporating PPI information from other sources can improve the effectiveness of protein complex identification.
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.