Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28361704›Full record

ArticleBMC bioinformatics2017

Comparison of tissue/disease specific integrated networks using directed graphlet signatures.

Arzu Burcak Sonmez, Tolga Can

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

2 authors.

Arzu Burcak SonmezDepartment of Medical Informatics, Informatics Institute, Middle East Technical University, Dumlupinar Bulvari No:1, Ankara, 06800, Turkey.
Tolga CanDepartment of Computer Egineering, Middle East Technical University, Dumlupinar Bulvari No:1, Ankara, 06800, Turkey. tcan@metu.edu.tr.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAnalysis of integrated genome-scale networks is a challenging problem due to heterogeneity of high-throughput data. There are several topological measures, such as graphlet counts, for characterization of biological networks.

resultsIn this paper, we present methods for counting small sub-graph patterns in integrated genome-scale networks which are modeled as labeled multidigraphs. We have obtained physical, regulatory, and metabolic interactions between H. sapiens proteins from the Pathway Commons database. The integrated network is filtered for tissue/disease specific proteins by using a large-scale human transcriptional profiling study, resulting in several tissue and disease specific sub-networks. We have applied and extended the idea of graphlet counting in undirected protein-protein interaction (PPI) networks to directed multi-labeled networks and represented each network as a vector of graphlet counts. Graphlet counts are assessed for statistical significance by comparison against a set of randomized networks. We present our results on analysis of differential graphlets between different conditions and on the utility of graphlet count vectors for clustering multiple condition specific networks.

conclusionsOur results show that there are numerous statistically significant graphlets in integrated biological networks and the graphlet signature vector can be used as an effective representation of a multi-labeled network for clustering and systems level analysis of tissue/disease specific networks.

Indexed as

Computer GraphicsDiseaseGene Regulatory NetworksProtein Interaction MapsComputer SimulationHumansModels, BiologicalOrgan SpecificityProtein Interaction MappingProteinsProteomeUser-Computer InterfaceProteinsProteomeDirected graphletsIntegrated networksNetwork comparison

Identifiers

PMID28361704
PMCPMC5374550

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.