Biomolecular network motif counting and discovery by color coding
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Protein-protein interaction (PPI) networks of many organisms share global topological features such as degree distribution, k-hop reachability, betweenness and closeness. Yet, some of these networks can differ significantly from the others in terms of local structures: e.g. the number of specific network motifs can vary significantly among PPI networks. Counting the number of network motifs provides a major challenge to compare biomolecular networks. Recently developed algorithms have been able to count the number of induced occurrences of subgraphs with k < or = 7 vertices. Yet no practical algorithm exists for counting non-induced occurrences, or counting subgraphs with k > or = 8 vertices. Counting non-induced occurrences of network motifs is not only challenging but also quite desirable as available PPI networks include several false interactions and miss many others. In this article, we show how to apply the 'color coding' technique for counting non-induced occurrences of subgraph topologies in the form of trees and bounded treewidth subgraphs. Our algorithm can count all occurrences of motif G' with k vertices in a network G with n vertices in time polynomial with n, provided k = O(log n). We use our algorithm to obtain 'treelet' distributions for k < or = 10 of available PPI networks of unicellular organisms (Saccharomyces cerevisiae Escherichia coli and Helicobacter Pyloris), which are all quite similar, and a multicellular organism (Caenorhabditis elegans) which is significantly different. Furthermore, the treelet distribution of the unicellular organisms are similar to that obtained by the 'duplication model' but are quite different from that of the 'preferential attachment model'. The treelet distribution is robust w.r.t. sparsification with bait/edge coverage of 70% but differences can be observed when bait/edge coverage drops to 50%.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it