Motifs, themes and thematic maps of an integrated Saccharomyces cerevisiaeinteraction network
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Large-scale studies have revealed networks of various biological interaction types, such as protein-protein interaction, genetic interaction, transcriptional regulation, sequence homology, and expression correlation. Recurring patterns of interconnection, or 'network motifs', have revealed biological insights for networks containing either one or two types of interaction. RESULTS: To study more complex relationships involving multiple biological interaction types, we assembled an integrated Saccharomyces cerevisiae network in which nodes represent genes (or their protein products) and differently colored links represent the aforementioned five biological interaction types. We examined three- and four-node interconnection patterns containing multiple interaction types and found many enriched multi-color network motifs. Furthermore, we showed that most of the motifs form 'network themes' -- classes of higher-order recurring interconnection patterns that encompass multiple occurrences of network motifs. Network themes can be tied to specific biological phenomena and may represent more fundamental network design principles. Examples of network themes include a pair of protein complexes with many inter-complex genetic interactions -- the 'compensatory complexes' theme. Thematic maps -- networks rendered in terms of such themes -- can simplify an otherwise confusing tangle of biological relationships. We show this by mapping the S. cerevisiae network in terms of two specific network themes. CONCLUSION: Significantly enriched motifs in an integrated S. cerevisiae interaction network are often signatures of network themes, higher-order network structures that correspond to biological phenomena. Representing networks in terms of network themes provides a useful simplification of complex biological relationships.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".