MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2141629057 · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btl030

Efficient estimation of graphlet frequency distributions in protein–protein interaction networks

2006· article· en· W2141629057 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Nataša Pržulj, Derek G. Corneil, Igor Jurišica

Bibliographic record

VenueBioinformatics · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBioinformatics and Genomic Networks
Canadian institutionsOntario Institute for Cancer ResearchUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsHeuristicsScalabilityHeuristicComputer scienceBiological networkSoftwareAlgorithmTheoretical computer scienceArtificial intelligenceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

MOTIVATION: Algorithmic and modeling advances in the area of protein-protein interaction (PPI) network analysis could contribute to the understanding of biological processes. Local structure of networks can be measured by the frequency distribution of graphlets, small connected non-isomorphic induced subgraphs. This measure of local structure has been used to show that high-confidence PPI networks have local structure of geometric random graphs. Finding graphlets exhaustively in a large network is computationally intensive. More complete PPI networks, as well as PPI networks of higher organisms, will thus require efficient heuristic approaches. RESULTS: We propose two efficient and scalable heuristics for finding graphlets in high-confidence PPI networks. We show that both PPI and their model geometric random networks, have defined boundaries that are sparser than the 'inner parts' of the networks. In addition, these networks exhibit 'uniformity' of local structure inside the networks. Our first heuristic exploits these two structural properties of PPI and geometric random networks to find good estimates of graphlet frequency distributions in these networks up to 690 times faster than the exhaustive searches. Our second heuristic is a variant of a more standard sampling technique and it produces accurate approximate results up to 377 times faster than the exhaustive searches. We indicate how the combination of these approaches may result in an even better heuristic. AVAILABILITY: Supplementary information is available at http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~natasha/BIOINF-2005-0946/Supplementary.pdf. Software implementing the algorithms is available at http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~natasha/BIOINF-2005-0946/estimate_grap-hlets.html. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.330
Threshold uncertainty score0.604

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

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

Citations137
Published2006
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBioinformaticsSame topicBioinformatics and Genomic NetworksFrench-language works237,207