Identifying protein complexes in protein–protein interaction networks by using clique seeds and graph entropy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The identification of protein complexes plays a key role in understanding major cellular processes and biological functions. Various computational algorithms have been proposed to identify protein complexes from protein-protein interaction (PPI) networks. In this paper, we first introduce a new seed-selection strategy for seed-growth style algorithms. Cliques rather than individual vertices are employed as initial seeds. After that, a result-modification approach is proposed based on this seed-selection strategy. Predictions generated by higher order clique seeds are employed to modify results that are generated by lower order ones. The performance of this seed-selection strategy and the result-modification approach are tested by using the entropy-based algorithm, which is currently the best seed-growth style algorithm to detect protein complexes from PPI networks. In addition, we investigate four pairs of strategies for this algorithm in order to improve its accuracy. The numerical experiments are conducted on a Saccharomyces cerevisiae PPI network. The group of best predictions consists of 1711 clusters, with the average f-score at 0.68 after removing all similar and redundant clusters. We conclude that higher order clique seeds can generate predictions with higher accuracy and that our improved entropy-based algorithm outputs more reasonable predictions than the original one.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".