Reference: Brohée S and van Helden J (2006) Evaluation of clustering algorithms for protein-protein interaction networks. BMC Bioinformatics 7:488

Reference Help

Abstract


BACKGROUND: Protein interactions are crucial components of all cellular processes. Recently, high-throughput methods have been developed to obtain a global description of the interactome (the whole network of protein interactions for a given organism). In 2002, the yeast interactome was estimated to contain up to 80,000 potential interactions. This estimate is based on the integration of data sets obtained by various methods (mass spectrometry, two-hybrid methods, genetic studies). High-throughput methods are known, however, to yield a non-negligible rate of false positives, and to miss a fraction of existing interactions. The interactome can be represented as a graph where nodes correspond with proteins and edges with pairwise interactions. In recent years clustering methods have been developed and applied in order to extract relevant modules from such graphs. These algorithms require the specification of parameters that may drastically affect the results. In this paper we present a comparative assessment of four algorithms: Markov Clustering (MCL), Restricted Neighborhood Search Clustering (RNSC), Super Paramagnetic Clustering (SPC), and Molecular Complex Detection (MCODE). RESULTS: A test graph was built on the basis of 220 complexes annotated in the MIPS database. To evaluate the robustness to false positives and false negatives, we derived 41 altered graphs by randomly removing edges from or adding edges to the test graph in various proportions. Each clustering algorithm was applied to these graphs with various parameter settings, and the clusters were compared with the annotated complexes. We analyzed the sensitivity of the algorithms to the parameters and determined their optimal parameter values. We also evaluated their robustness to alterations of the test graph. We then applied the four algorithms to six graphs obtained from high-throughput experiments and compared the resulting clusters with the annotated complexes. CONCLUSION: This analysis shows that MCL is remarkably robust to graph alterations. In the tests of robustness, RNSC is more sensitive to edge deletion but less sensitive to the use of suboptimal parameter values. The other two algorithms are clearly weaker under most conditions. The analysis of high-throughput data supports the superiority of MCL for the extraction of complexes from interaction networks.

Reference Type
Comparative Study | Evaluation Studies | Journal Article | Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Authors
Brohée S, van Helden J
Primary Lit For
Additional Lit For
Review For

Interaction Annotations


Increase the total number of rows showing on this page by using the pull-down located below the table, or use the page scroll at the table's top right to browse through the table's pages; use the arrows to the right of a column header to sort by that column; filter the table using the "Filter" box at the top of the table; click on the small "i" buttons located within a cell for an annotation to view further details about experiment type and any other genes involved in the interaction.

Interactor Interactor Type Assay Annotation Action Modification Phenotype Source Reference

Gene Ontology Annotations


Increase the total number of rows showing on this page using the pull-down located below the table, or use the page scroll at the table's top right to browse through the table's pages; use the arrows to the right of a column header to sort by that column; filter the table using the "Filter" box at the top of the table.

Gene Qualifier Gene Ontology Term Aspect Annotation Extension Evidence Method Source Assigned On Reference

Phenotype Annotations


Increase the total number of rows showing on this page using the pull-down located below the table, or use the page scroll at the table's top right to browse through the table's pages; use the arrows to the right of a column header to sort by that column; filter the table using the "Filter" box at the top of the table; click on the small "i" buttons located within a cell for an annotation to view further details.

Gene Phenotype Experiment Type Mutant Information Strain Background Chemical Details Reference

Disease Annotations


Increase the total number of rows showing on this page using the pull-down located below the table, or use the page scroll at the table's top right to browse through the table's pages; use the arrows to the right of a column header to sort by that column; filter the table using the "Filter" box at the top of the table.

Gene Disease Ontology Term Qualifier Evidence Method Source Assigned On Reference

Regulation Annotations


Increase the total number of rows displayed on this page using the pull-down located below the table, or use the page scroll at the table's top right to browse through the table's pages; use the arrows to the right of a column header to sort by that column; to filter the table by a specific experiment type, type a keyword into the Filter box (for example, “microarray”); download this table as a .txt file using the Download button or click Analyze to further view and analyze the list of target genes using GO Term Finder, GO Slim Mapper, SPELL, or YeastMine.

Regulator Target Direction Regulation Of Happens During Method Evidence