Predicting highly-connected hubs in protein interaction networks by QSAR and biological data descriptors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Hub proteins (those engaged in most physical interactions in a protein interaction network (PIN) have recently gained much research interest due to their essential role in mediating cellular processes and their potential therapeutic value. It is straightforward to identify hubs if the underlying PIN is experimentally determined; however, theoretical hub prediction remains a very challenging task, as physicochemical properties that differentiate hubs from less connected proteins remain mostly uncharacterized. To adequately distinguish hubs from non-hub proteins we have utilized over 1300 protein descriptors, some of which represent QSAR (quantitative structure-activity relationship) parameters, and some reflect sequence-derived characteristics of proteins including domain composition and functional annotations. Those protein descriptors, together with available protein interaction data have been processed by a machine learning method (boosting trees) and resulted in the development of hub classifiers that are capable of predicting highly interacting proteins for four model organisms: Escherichia coli, Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Drosophila melanogaster and Homo sapiens. More importantly, through the analyses of the most relevant protein descriptors, we are able to demonstrate that hub proteins not only share certain common physicochemical and structural characteristics that make them different from non-hub counterparts, but they also exhibit species-specific characteristics that should be taken into account when analyzing different PINs. The developed prediction models can be used for determining highly interacting proteins in the four studied species to assist future proteomics experiments and PIN analyses. AVAILABILITY: THE SOURCE CODE AND EXECUTABLE PROGRAM OF THE HUB CLASSIFIER ARE AVAILABLE FOR DOWNLOAD AT: http://www.cnbi2.ca/hub-analysis/
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".