4.7 Article

Unified Alignment of Protein-Protein Interaction Networks

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 7, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-01085-9

关键词

-

资金

  1. European Research Council (ERC) Starting Independent Researcher Grant [278212]
  2. National Science Foundation (NSF) Cyber-Enabled Discovery and Innovation (CDI) [OIA-1028394]
  3. Serbian Ministry of Education and Science Project [III44006]
  4. Slovenian Research Agency (ARRS) program [P1-0383]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Paralleling the increasing availability of protein-protein interaction ( PPI) network data, several network alignment methods have been proposed. Network alignments have been used to uncover functionally conserved network parts and to transfer annotations. However, due to the computational intractability of the network alignment problem, aligners are heuristics providing divergent solutions and no consensus exists on a gold standard, or which scoring scheme should be used to evaluate them. We comprehensively evaluate the alignment scoring schemes and global network aligners on large scale PPI data and observe that three methods, HUBALIGN, L-GRAAL and NATALIE, regularly produce the most topologically and biologically coherent alignments. We study the collective behaviour of network aligners and observe that PPI networks are almost entirely aligned with a handful of aligners that we unify into a new tool, Ulign. Ulign enables complete alignment of two networks, which traditional global and local aligners fail to do. Also, multiple mappings of Ulign define biologically relevant soft clusterings of proteins in PPI networks, which may be used for refining the transfer of annotations across networks. Hence, PPI networks are already well investigated by current aligners, so to gain additional biological insights, a paradigm shift is needed. We propose such a shift come from aligning all available data types collectively rather than any particular data type in isolation from others.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据