SANA: cross-species prediction of Gene Ontology GO annotations via topological network alignment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Topological network alignment aims to align two networks node-wise in order to maximize the observed common connection (edge) topology between them. The topological alignment of two protein-protein interaction (PPI) networks should thus expose protein pairs with similar interaction partners allowing, for example, the prediction of common Gene Ontology (GO) terms. Unfortunately, no network alignment algorithm based on topology alone has been able to achieve this aim, though those that include sequence similarity have seen some success. We argue that this failure of topology alone is due to the sparsity and incompleteness of the PPI network data of almost all species, which provides the network topology with a small signal-to-noise ratio that is effectively swamped when sequence information is added to the mix. Here we show that the weak signal can be detected using multiple stochastic samples of "good" topological network alignments, which allows us to observe regions of the two networks that are robustly aligned across multiple samples. The resulting network alignment frequency (NAF) strongly correlates with GO-based Resnik semantic similarity and enables the first successful cross-species predictions of GO terms based on topology-only network alignments. Our best predictions have an AUPR of about 0.4, which is competitive with state-of-the-art algorithms, even when there is no observable sequence similarity and no known homology relationship. While our results provide only a "proof of concept" on existing network data, we hypothesize that predicting GO terms from topology-only network alignments will become increasingly practical as the volume and quality of PPI network data increase.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".