ArticleScientific reports2014
Modelling the yeast interactome.
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.
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.
- Revisiting the use of graph centrality models in biological pathway analysis.BioData mining · 2020Article
- NAPAbench 2: A network synthesis algorithm for generating realistic protein-protein interaction (PPI) network families.PloS one · 2020Article
- The post-genomic era of biological network alignment.EURASIP journal on bioinformatics & systems biology · 2015Article
- Revisiting topological properties and models of protein-protein interaction networks from the perspective of dataset evolution.IET systems biology · 2015Article
- Experimental and computational analysis of a large protein network that controls fat storage reveals the design principles of a signaling network.PLoS computational biology · 2015Article
- A highly efficient approach to protein interactome mapping based on collaborative filtering framework.Scientific 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The topology behind biological interaction networks has been studied for over a decade. Yet, there is no definite agreement on the theoretical models which best describe protein-protein interaction (PPI) networks. Such models are critical to quantifying the significance of any empirical observation regarding those networks. Here, we perform a comprehensive analysis of yeast PPI networks in order to gain insights into their topology and its dependency on interaction-screening technology. We find that: (1) interaction-detection technology has little effect on the topology of PPI networks; (2) topology of these interaction networks differs in organisms with different cellular complexity (human and yeast); (3) clear topological difference is present between PPI networks, their functional sub-modules, and their inter-functional "linkers"; (4) high confidence PPI networks have more "geometrical" topology compared to predicted, incomplete, or noisy PPI networks; and (5) inter-functional "linker" proteins serve as mediators in signal transduction, transport, regulation and organisational cellular processes.
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.