Detecting conserved protein complexes using a dividing-and-matching algorithm and unequally lenient criteria for network comparison
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The increase of protein-protein interaction (PPI) data of different species makes it possible to identify common subnetworks (conserved protein complexes) across species via local alignment of their PPI networks, which benefits us to study biological evolution. Local alignment algorithms compare PPI network of different species at both protein sequence and network structure levels. For computational and biological reasons, it is hard to find common subnetworks with strict similar topology from two input PPI networks. Consequently some methods introduce less strict criteria for topological similarity. However those methods fail to consider the differences of the two input networks and adopt equally lenient criteria on them. In this work, a new dividing-and-matching-based method, namely UEDAMAlign is proposed to detect conserved protein complexes. This method firstly uses known protein complexes or computational methods to divide one of the two input PPI networks into subnetworks and then maps the proteins in these subnetworks to the other PPI network to get their homologous proteins. After that, UEDAMAlign conducts unequally lenient criteria on the two input networks to find common connected components from the proteins in the subnetworks and their homologous proteins in the other network. We carry out network alignments between S. cerevisiae and D. melanogaster, H. sapiens and D. melanogaster, respectively. Comparisons are made between other six existing methods and UEDAMAlign. The experimental results show that UEDAMAlign outperforms other existing methods in recovering conserved protein complexes that both match well with known protein complexes and have similar functions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".