ArticlePloS one2015
Mining the modular structure of protein interaction networks.
Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- A mechanistic model of connector hubs, modularity and cognition.Nature human behaviour · 2018Article
- Network, Transcriptomic and Genomic Features Differentiate Genes Relevant for Drug Response.Frontiers in genetics · 2018Article
- Uncovering disease mechanisms through network biology in the era of Next Generation Sequencing.Scientific reports · 2016Article
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
backgroundCluster-based descriptions of biological networks have received much attention in recent years fostered by accumulated evidence of the existence of meaningful correlations between topological network clusters and biological functional modules. Several well-performing clustering algorithms exist to infer topological network partitions. However, due to respective technical idiosyncrasies they might produce dissimilar modular decompositions of a given network. In this contribution, we aimed to analyze how alternative modular descriptions could condition the outcome of follow-up network biology analysis. METHODOLOGY: We considered a human protein interaction network and two paradigmatic cluster recognition algorithms, namely: the Clauset-Newman-Moore and the infomap procedures. We analyzed to what extent both methodologies yielded different results in terms of granularity and biological congruency. In addition, taking into account Guimera's cartographic role characterization of network nodes, we explored how the adoption of a given clustering methodology impinged on the ability to highlight relevant network meso-scale connectivity patterns.
resultsAs a case study we considered a set of aging related proteins and showed that only the high-resolution modular description provided by infomap, could unveil statistically significant associations between them and inter/intra modular cartographic features. Besides reporting novel biological insights that could be gained from the discovered associations, our contribution warns against possible technical concerns that might affect the tools used to mine for interaction patterns in network biology studies. In particular our results suggested that sub-optimal partitions from the strict point of view of their modularity levels might still be worth being analyzed when meso-scale features were to be explored in connection with external source of biological knowledge.
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.