Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26987731›Full record

ArticleBMC bioinformatics2016

Comparison of module detection algorithms in protein networks and investigation of the biological meaning of predicted modules.

Shailesh Tripathi, Salissou Moutari, Matthias Dehmer, Frank Emmert-Streib

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

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 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2023
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Modularity in Biological Networks.Frontiers in genetics · 2021
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Shailesh TripathiPredictive Medicine and Analytics Lab, Department of Signal Processing, Tampere University of Technology, Tampere, Finland.
Salissou MoutariCentre for Statistical Science and Operational Research, School of Mathematics and Physics, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK.
Matthias DehmerInstitute for Theoretical Informatics, Mathematics and Operations Research, Department of Computer Science, Universität der Bundeswehr München, Munich, Germany.
Frank Emmert-StreibPredictive Medicine and Analytics Lab, Department of Signal Processing, Tampere University of Technology, Tampere, Finland. v@bio-complexity.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIt is generally acknowledged that a functional understanding of a biological system can only be obtained by an understanding of the collective of molecular interactions in form of biological networks. Protein networks are one particular network type of special importance, because proteins form the functional base units of every biological cell. On a mesoscopic level of protein networks, modules are of significant importance because these building blocks may be the next elementary functional level above individual proteins allowing to gain insight into fundamental organizational principles of biological cells.

resultsIn this paper, we provide a comparative analysis of five popular and four novel module detection algorithms. We study these module prediction methods for simulated benchmark networks as well as 10 biological protein interaction networks (PINs). A particular focus of our analysis is placed on the biological meaning of the predicted modules by utilizing the Gene Ontology (GO) database as gold standard for the definition of biological processes. Furthermore, we investigate the robustness of the results by perturbing the PINs simulating in this way our incomplete knowledge of protein networks.

conclusionsOverall, our study reveals that there is a large heterogeneity among the different module prediction algorithms if one zooms-in the biological level of biological processes in the form of GO terms and all methods are severely affected by a slight perturbation of the networks. However, we also find pathways that are enriched in multiple modules, which could provide important information about the hierarchical organization of the system.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsGene OntologyProtein Interaction MappingAnimalsCluster AnalysisEukaryotaHumansBiological processesModule detection algorithmsProtein networks

Identifiers

PMID26987731
PMCPMC4797184

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.