Efficient estimation of graphlet frequency distributions in protein–protein interaction networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".