| Literature DB >> 28705239 |
Theodosios Theodosiou1, Georgios Efstathiou1, Nikolas Papanikolaou1, Nikos C Kyrpides2, Pantelis G Bagos3, Ioannis Iliopoulos4, Georgios A Pavlopoulos5,6.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Nowadays, due to the technological advances of high-throughput techniques, Systems Biology has seen a tremendous growth of data generation. With network analysis, looking at biological systems at a higher level in order to better understand a system, its topology and the relationships between its components is of a great importance. Gene expression, signal transduction, protein/chemical interactions, biomedical literature co-occurrences, are few of the examples captured in biological network representations where nodes represent certain bioentities and edges represent the connections between them. Today, many tools for network visualization and analysis are available. Nevertheless, most of them are standalone applications that often (i) burden users with computing and calculation time depending on the network's size and (ii) focus on handling, editing and exploring a network interactively. While such functionality is of great importance, limited efforts have been made towards the comparison of the topological analysis of multiple networks.Entities:
Keywords: Centralities; Network biology; Network comparison; Network topology; Node and edge ranking
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28705239 PMCID: PMC5513407 DOI: 10.1186/s13104-017-2607-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Res Notes ISSN: 1756-0500
Fig. 1NAP’s web interface. a Users can upload several networks in the form of a list (pairwise connections) and subsequently name them. Users can also generate graphs of various sizes (50, 100, 1000, 10,000) based on the Barabási–Albert, Erdos–Renyi or Watts–Strogatz small-world model. Additionally, users can generate bipartite graphs of various sizes. b Network contents in the form of searchable and sortable tables. c-left Static network visualization. c-right Interactive Cytoscape.js network visualization. d Selection of topological features and their values. e Inter-network comparisons of topological features. f Node/edge ranking in the view of searchable tables. g Intra-network topological feature comparison in the form of a matrix. h Implementation of MCL clustering algorithm. i Intersection of any two chosen networks
NAP’s supported topological features and their explanation
| Topological feature | Simplified explanation |
|---|---|
| Number of edges | Shows the number of edges in the network. Moderate network of several thousand connections are very acceptable |
| Number of nodes | Shows the number of nodes in the network. There is no limitation on the number of nodes |
| Diameter | Shows the length of the longest geodesic. The diameter is calculated by using a breadth-first search like method. The graph-theoretic or geodesic distance between two points is defined as the length of the shortest path between them |
| Radius | The eccentricity of a vertex is its shortest path distance from the farthest other node in the graph. The smallest eccentricity in a graph is called its radius. The eccentricity of a vertex is calculated by measuring the shortest distance from (or to) the vertex, to (or from) all vertices in the graph, and taking the maximum |
| Density | The density of a graph is the ratio of the number of edges and the number of possible edges |
| Number of edges | Shows the number of edges in the network. If the has more than 10,000 edges it will take into account the first 10,000 |
| Average path length | The average number of steps needed to go from a node to any other |
| Clustering coefficient | A metric to show if the network has the tendency to form clusters |
| Modularity | This function calculates how modular is a given division of a graph into subgraphs |
| Number of self-loops | How many nodes are connected to themselves |
| Average eccentricity | The eccentricity of a vertex is its shortest path distance from the farthest other node in the graph |
| Average eigenvector centrality | It is a measure of the influence of a node in a network |
| Assortativity degree | The assortativity coefficient is positive is similar vertices (based on some external property) tend to connect to each, and negative otherwise |
| Is directed acyclic graph | It returns True (1) or False (0) |
| Is directed | It returns True (1) or False (0) depending whether the edges are directed or not |
| Is bipartite | It returns True (1) or False (0) depending whether the graph is bipartite or not |
| Is chordal | It returns True (1) or False (0). A graph is chordal (or triangulated) if each of its cycles of four or more nodes has a chord, which is an edge joining two nodes that are not adjacent in the cycle. An equivalent definition is that any chordless cycles have at most three nodes |
| Average number of neighbors | How many neighbors each node of the network has on average |
| Centralization betweenness | It is an indicator of a node’s centrality in a network. It is equal to the number of shortest paths from all vertices to all others that pass through that node. Betweenness centrality quantifies the number of times a node acts as a bridge along the shortest path between two other nodes |
| Centralization closeness | It measures the speed with which randomly walking messages reach a vertex from elsewhere in the graph |
| Centralization degree | It is defined as the number of links incident upon a node |
| Graph mincut | It calculates the minimum st-cut between two vertices in a graph The minimum st-cut between source and target is the minimum total weight of edges needed to remove to eliminate all paths from source to target |
| Motifs-3 | Use of igraph to searches a graph for motifs of size 3 |
| Motifs-4 | Use of igraph to searches a graph for motifs of size 4 |
Fig. 2Direct comparison of the topological features of two yeast protein–protein interaction datasets. a Gavin 2002 dataset [16] consists of 3210 edges and 1352 vertices, whereas Gavin 2006 [15] consists of 6531 edges and 1430 vertices. b Comparison of the networks’ clustering coefficient, density, closeness, betweenness and degree
Fig. 3Intra-network comparison of selected topological features within the Gavin 2002 yeast PPI dataset [16]. a The degree distribution for Gavin 2002 dataset. b The degree distribution for Gavin 2006 dataset. c An all-against-all distribution matrix comparing the degree, the closeness, the betweenness and the clustering coefficient for Gavin 2002 PPI network. d An all-against-all distribution matrix comparing the degree, the closeness, the betweenness and the clustering coefficient for Gavin 2006 PPI network
Fig. 4Node and edge ranking. a Proteins of the Gavin 2006 PPI datasets are sorted according to their degree. PWP2 (YCR057C) protein has many neighbors and might behave as hub. b Interactions of the Gavin 2006 PPI datasets are sorted according to their betweenness centrality. Edge between SEC8 (YPR055W) and RPC17 (YJL011C) behaves as a bridge between communities
Fig. 5NAP’s functionality to find the intersection between ant pair of selected networks. a Gavin 2006 and 2002 PPI datasets visualized by Cytoscape 3.4.0 using the Prefuse layout. b NAP’s generated Venn diagrams showing the overlapping nodes and edges of the two networks. c NAP’s intersection export function and visualization with Cytoscape