ArticlePloS one2018
Predicting protein complexes using a supervised learning method combined with local structural information.
Article in PloS one, 2018. 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.
- Heterogeneous network approaches to protein pathway prediction.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2024Review
- Molecular complex detection in protein interaction networks through reinforcement learning.BMC bioinformatics · 2023Article
- An Ensemble Learning Framework for Detecting Protein Complexes From PPI Networks.Frontiers in genetics · 2022Article
- A New Sequential Forward Feature Selection (SFFS) Algorithm for Mining Best Topological and Biological Features to Predict Protein Complexes from Protein-Protein Interaction Networks (PPINs).Interdisciplinary sciences, computational life sciences · 2021Article
- Super.Complex: A supervised machine learning pipeline for molecular complex detection in protein-interaction networks.PloS one · 2021Article
- The proteome and its dynamics: A missing piece for integrative multi-omics in schizophrenia.Schizophrenia research · 2020Article
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 existing protein complex detection methods can be broadly divided into two categories: unsupervised and supervised learning methods. Most of the unsupervised learning methods assume that protein complexes are in dense regions of protein-protein interaction (PPI) networks even though many true complexes are not dense subgraphs. Supervised learning methods utilize the informative properties of known complexes; they often extract features from existing complexes and then use the features to train a classification model. The trained model is used to guide the search process for new complexes. However, insufficient extracted features, noise in the PPI data and the incompleteness of complex data make the classification model imprecise. Consequently, the classification model is not sufficient for guiding the detection of complexes. Therefore, we propose a new robust score function that combines the classification model with local structural information. Based on the score function, we provide a search method that works both forwards and backwards. The results from experiments on six benchmark PPI datasets and three protein complex datasets show that our approach can achieve better performance compared with the state-of-the-art supervised, semi-supervised and unsupervised methods for protein complex detection, occasionally significantly outperforming such methods.
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.