ArticleBMC bioinformatics2016
A NMF based approach for integrating multiple data sources to predict HIV-1-human PPIs.
Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2016. 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, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Bioinformatics approaches for unveiling virus-host interactions.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2023Review
- Deep variational graph autoencoders for novel host-directed therapy options against COVID-19.Artificial intelligence in medicine · 2022Article
- Germline genomic patterns are associated with cancer risk, oncogenic pathways, and clinical outcomes.Science advances · 2020Article
- Predicting Interactions between Virus and Host Proteins Using Repeat Patterns and Composition of Amino Acids.Journal of healthcare engineering · 2018Article
- Matrix Integrative Analysis (MIA) of Multiple Genomic Data for Modular Patterns.Frontiers in genetics · 2018Article
- Comparative interactomics for virus-human protein-protein interactions: DNA viruses versus RNA viruses.FEBS open bio · 2017Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPredicting novel interactions between HIV-1 and human proteins contributes most promising area in HIV research. Prediction is generally guided by some classification and inference based methods using single biological source of information.
resultsIn this article we have proposed a novel framework to predict protein-protein interactions (PPIs) between HIV-1 and human proteins by integrating multiple biological sources of information through non negative matrix factorization (NMF). For this purpose, the multiple data sets are converted to biological networks, which are then utilized to predict modules. These modules are subsequently combined into meta-modules by using NMF based clustering method. The integrated meta-modules are used to predict novel interactions between HIV-1 and human proteins. We have analyzed the significant GO terms and KEGG pathways in which the human proteins of the meta-modules participate. Moreover, the topological properties of human proteins involved in the meta modules are investigated. We have also performed statistical significance test to evaluate the predictions.
conclusionsHere, we propose a novel approach based on integration of different biological data sources, for predicting PPIs between HIV-1 and human proteins. Here, the integration is achieved through non negative matrix factorization (NMF) technique. Most of the predicted interactions are found to be well supported by the existing literature in PUBMED. Moreover, human proteins in the predicted set emerge as 'hubs' and 'bottlenecks' in the analysis. Low p-value in the significance test also suggests that the predictions are statistically significant.
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.