Clustering by common friends finds locally significant proteins mediating modules
Bibliographic record
Abstract
MOTIVATION: Much research has been dedicated to large-scale protein interaction networks including the analysis of scale-free topologies, network modules and the relation of domain-domain to protein-protein interaction networks. Identifying locally significant proteins that mediate the function of modules is still an open problem. METHOD: We use a layered clustering algorithm for interaction networks, which groups proteins by the similarity of their direct neighborhoods. We identify locally significant proteins, called mediators, which link different clusters. We apply the algorithm to a yeast network. RESULTS: Clusters and mediators are organized in hierarchies, where clusters are mediated by and act as mediators for other clusters. We compare the clusters and mediators to known yeast complexes and find agreement with precision of 71% and recall of 61%. We analyzed the functions, processes and locations of mediators and clusters. We found that 55% of mediators to a cluster are enriched with a set of diverse processes and locations, often related to translocation of biomolecules. Additionally, 82% of clusters are enriched with one or more functions. The important role of mediators is further corroborated by a comparatively higher degree of conservation across genomes. We illustrate the above findings with an example of membrane protein translocation from the cytoplasm to the inner nuclear membrane. AVAILABILITY: All software is freely available under Supplementary information.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".