GreedyPlus: An Algorithm for the Alignment of Interface Interaction Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The increasing ease and accuracy of protein-protein interaction detection has resulted in the ability to map the interactomes of multiple species. We now have an opportunity to compare species to better understand how interactomes evolve. As DNA and protein sequence alignment algorithms were required for comparative genomics, network alignment algorithms are required for comparative interactomics. A number of network alignment methods have been developed for protein-protein interaction networks, where proteins are represented as vertices linked by edges if they interact. Recently, protein interactions have been mapped at the level of amino acid positions, which can be represented as an interface-interaction network (IIN), where vertices represent binding sites, such as protein domains and short sequence motifs. However, current algorithms are not designed to align these networks and generally fail to do so in practice. We present a greedy algorithm, GreedyPlus, for IIN alignment, combining data from diverse sources, including network, protein and binding site properties, to identify putative orthologous relationships between interfaces in available worm and yeast data. GreedyPlus is fast and simple, allowing for easy customization of behaviour, yet still capable of generating biologically meaningful network alignments.
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) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.006 |
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".