Faculty Opinions recommendation of Unraveling protein interaction networks with near-optimal efficiency.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The functional characterization of genes and their gene products is the main challenge of the genomic era. Examining interaction information for every gene product is a direct way to assemble the jigsaw puzzle of proteins into a functional map. Here we demonstrate a method in which the information gained from pull-down experiments, in which single proteins act as baits to detect interactions with other proteins, is maximized by using a network-based strategy to select the baits. Because of the scale-free distribution of protein interaction networks, we were able to obtain fast coverage by focusing on highly connected nodes (hubs) first. Unfortunately, locating hubs requires prior global information about the network one is trying to unravel. Here, we present an optimized 'pay-as-you-go' strategy that identifies highly connected nodes using only local information that is collected as successive pull-down experiments are performed. Using this strategy, we estimate that 90% of the human interactome can be covered by 10,000 pull-down experiments, with 50% of the interactions confirmed by reciprocal pull-down experiments. PMID: 14661027
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.029 | 0.036 |
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".