MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2091816809 · doi:10.1109/tnb.2013.2264097

Identifying Protein Complexes Based on Multiple Topological Structures in PPI Networks

2013· article· en· W2091816809 on OpenAlexaff
Bolin Chen, Fang‐Xiang Wu

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on NanoBioscience · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBioinformatics and Genomic Networks
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTopology (electrical circuits)Matching (statistics)Computer scienceCore (optical fiber)MathematicsCombinatorics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Various computational algorithms are developed to identify protein complexes based on only one of specific topological structures in protein-protein interaction (PPI) networks, such as cliques, dense subgraphs, core-attachment structures and starlike structures. However, protein complexes exhibit intricate connections in a PPI network. They cannot be fully detected by only single topological structure. In this paper, we propose an algorithm based on multiple topological structures to identify protein complexes from PPI networks. In the proposed algorithm, four single topological structure based algorithms are first employed to identify raw predictions with specific topological structures, respectively. Those raw predictions are trimmed according to their topological information or GO annotations. Similar results are carefully merged before generating final predictions. Numerical experiments are conducted on a yeast PPI network of DIP and a human PPI network of HPRD. The predicted results show that the multiple topological structure based algorithm can not only obtain a more number of predictions, but also generate results with high accuracy in terms of f-score, matching with known protein complexes and functional enrichments with GO.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.224 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations23
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on NanoBioscienceSame topicBioinformatics and Genomic NetworksFrench-language works237,207