ArticleScientific reports2014
A comparative analysis of computational approaches and algorithms for protein subcomplex identification.
Article in Scientific reports, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A Meta-Analysis of Alzheimer's Disease Brain Transcriptomic Data.Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD · 2019Pooled it
- Consistent Biomarkers and Related Pathogenesis Underlying Asthma Revealed by Systems Biology Approach.International journal of molecular sciences · 2019Article
- Development of an in silico method for the identification of subcomplexes involved in the biogenesis of multiprotein complexes in Saccharomyces cerevisiae.BMC systems biology · 2017Article
- Deciphering preferential interactions within supramolecular protein complexes: the proteasome case.Molecular systems biology · 2015Article
- Characterization of protein complexes and subcomplexes in protein-protein interaction databases.Biochemistry research international · 2015Article
- Detecting Protein Complexes in Protein Interaction Networks Modeled as Gene Expression Biclusters.PloS one · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
High-throughput AP-MS methods have allowed the identification of many protein complexes. However, most post-processing methods of this type of data have been focused on detection of protein complexes and not its subcomplexes. Here, we review the results of some existing methods that may allow subcomplex detection and propose alternative methods in order to detect subcomplexes from AP-MS data. We assessed and drew comparisons between the use of overlapping clustering methods, methods based in the core-attachment model and our own prediction strategy (TRIBAL). The hypothesis behind TRIBAL is that subcomplex-building information may be concealed in the multiple edges generated by an interaction repeated in different contexts in raw data. The CACHET method offered the best results when the evaluation of the predicted subcomplexes was carried out using both the hypergeometric and geometric scores. TRIBAL offered the best performance when using a strict meet-min score.
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.