ArticlePloS one2020
Data-driven network alignment.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Current and future directions in network biology.Bioinformatics advances · 2024Article
- Joint embedding of biological networks for cross-species functional alignment.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2023Article
- Supervised biological network alignment with graph neural networks.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2023Article
- Data-driven biological network alignment that uses topological, sequence, and functional information.BMC bioinformatics · 2021Article
- Pairwise Versus Multiple Global Network Alignment.IEEE access : practical innovations, open solutions · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In this study, we deal with the problem of biological network alignment (NA), which aims to find a node mapping between species' molecular networks that uncovers similar network regions, thus allowing for the transfer of functional knowledge between the aligned nodes. We provide evidence that current NA methods, which assume that topologically similar nodes (i.e., nodes whose network neighborhoods are isomorphic-like) have high functional relatedness, do not actually end up aligning functionally related nodes. That is, we show that the current topological similarity assumption does not hold well. Consequently, we argue that a paradigm shift is needed with how the NA problem is approached. So, we redefine NA as a data-driven framework, called TARA (data-driven NA), which attempts to learn the relationship between topological relatedness and functional relatedness without assuming that topological relatedness corresponds to topological similarity. TARA makes no assumptions about what nodes should be aligned, distinguishing it from existing NA methods. Specifically, TARA trains a classifier to predict whether two nodes from different networks are functionally related based on their network topological patterns (features). We find that TARA is able to make accurate predictions. TARA then takes each pair of nodes that are predicted as related to be part of an alignment. Like traditional NA methods, TARA uses this alignment for the across-species transfer of functional knowledge. TARA as currently implemented uses topological but not protein sequence information for functional knowledge transfer. In this context, we find that TARA outperforms existing state-of-the-art NA methods that also use topological information, WAVE and SANA, and even outperforms or complements a state-of-the-art NA method that uses both topological and sequence information, PrimAlign. Hence, adding sequence information to TARA, which is our future work, is likely to further improve its performance. The software and data are available at http://www.nd.edu/~cone/TARA/.
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.