Literature DB >> 17237089

Biological network comparison using graphlet degree distribution.

Natasa Przulj1.   

Abstract

MOTIVATION: Analogous to biological sequence comparison, comparing cellular networks is an important problem that could provide insight into biological understanding and therapeutics. For technical reasons, comparing large networks is computationally infeasible, and thus heuristics, such as the degree distribution, clustering coefficient, diameter, and relative graphlet frequency distribution have been sought. It is easy to demonstrate that two networks are different by simply showing a short list of properties in which they differ. It is much harder to show that two networks are similar, as it requires demonstrating their similarity in all of their exponentially many properties. Clearly, it is computationally prohibitive to analyze all network properties, but the larger the number of constraints we impose in determining network similarity, the more likely it is that the networks will truly be similar.
RESULTS: We introduce a new systematic measure of a network's local structure that imposes a large number of similarity constraints on networks being compared. In particular, we generalize the degree distribution, which measures the number of nodes 'touching' k edges, into distributions measuring the number of nodes 'touching' k graphlets, where graphlets are small connected non-isomorphic subgraphs of a large network. Our new measure of network local structure consists of 73 graphlet degree distributions of graphlets with 2-5 nodes, but it is easily extendible to a greater number of constraints (i.e. graphlets), if necessary, and the extensions are limited only by the available CPU. Furthermore, we show a way to combine the 73 graphlet degree distributions into a network 'agreement' measure which is a number between 0 and 1, where 1 means that networks have identical distributions and 0 means that they are far apart. Based on this new network agreement measure, we show that almost all of the 14 eukaryotic PPI networks, including human, resulting from various high-throughput experimental techniques, as well as from curated databases, are better modeled by geometric random graphs than by Erdös-Rény, random scale-free, or Barabási-Albert scale-free networks. AVAILABILITY: Software executables are available upon request.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17237089     DOI: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btl301

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Bioinformatics        ISSN: 1367-4803            Impact factor:   6.937


  135 in total

1.  Using manifold embedding for assessing and predicting protein interactions from high-throughput experimental data.

Authors:  Zhu-Hong You; Ying-Ke Lei; Jie Gui; De-Shuang Huang; Xiaobo Zhou
Journal:  Bioinformatics       Date:  2010-09-03       Impact factor: 6.937

2.  Topological network alignment uncovers biological function and phylogeny.

Authors:  Oleksii Kuchaiev; Tijana Milenkovic; Vesna Memisevic; Wayne Hayes; Natasa Przulj
Journal:  J R Soc Interface       Date:  2010-03-17       Impact factor: 4.118

Review 3.  A system biology approach to identify regulatory pathways underlying the neuroendocrine control of female puberty in rats and nonhuman primates.

Authors:  Alejandro Lomniczi; Hollis Wright; Juan Manuel Castellano; Kemal Sonmez; Sergio R Ojeda
Journal:  Horm Behav       Date:  2013-07       Impact factor: 3.587

4.  L-GRAAL: Lagrangian graphlet-based network aligner.

Authors:  Noël Malod-Dognin; Nataša Pržulj
Journal:  Bioinformatics       Date:  2015-02-28       Impact factor: 6.937

5.  Systems-level cancer gene identification from protein interaction network topology applied to melanogenesis-related functional genomics data.

Authors:  Tijana Milenkovic; Vesna Memisevic; Anand K Ganesan; Natasa Przulj
Journal:  J R Soc Interface       Date:  2009-07-22       Impact factor: 4.118

6.  Large-scale analysis of disease pathways in the human interactome.

Authors:  Monica Agrawal; Marinka Zitnik; Jure Leskovec
Journal:  Pac Symp Biocomput       Date:  2018

7.  Geometric de-noising of protein-protein interaction networks.

Authors:  Oleksii Kuchaiev; Marija Rasajski; Desmond J Higham; Natasa Przulj
Journal:  PLoS Comput Biol       Date:  2009-08-07       Impact factor: 4.475

8.  How threshold behaviour affects the use of subgraphs for network comparison.

Authors:  Tiago Rito; Zi Wang; Charlotte M Deane; Gesine Reinert
Journal:  Bioinformatics       Date:  2010-09-15       Impact factor: 6.937

9.  Optimized null model for protein structure networks.

Authors:  Tijana Milenković; Ioannis Filippis; Michael Lappe; Natasa Przulj
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2009-06-26       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Protein complex identification by supervised graph local clustering.

Authors:  Yanjun Qi; Fernanda Balem; Christos Faloutsos; Judith Klein-Seetharaman; Ziv Bar-Joseph
Journal:  Bioinformatics       Date:  2008-07-01       Impact factor: 6.937

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.