Reference: Vlasblom J and Wodak SJ (2009) Markov clustering versus affinity propagation for the partitioning of protein interaction graphs. BMC Bioinformatics 10:99

Reference Help

Abstract


BACKGROUND: Genome scale data on protein interactions are generally represented as large networks, or graphs, where hundreds or thousands of proteins are linked to one another. Since proteins tend to function in groups, or complexes, an important goal has been to reliably identify protein complexes from these graphs. This task is commonly executed using clustering procedures, which aim at detecting densely connected regions within the interaction graphs. There exists a wealth of clustering algorithms, some of which have been applied to this problem. One of the most successful clustering procedures in this context has been the Markov Cluster algorithm (MCL), which was recently shown to outperform a number of other procedures, some of which were specifically designed for partitioning protein interactions graphs. A novel promising clustering procedure termed Affinity Propagation (AP) was recently shown to be particularly effective, and much faster than other methods for a variety of problems, but has not yet been applied to partition protein interaction graphs. RESULTS: In this work we compare the performance of the Affinity Propagation (AP) and Markov Clustering (MCL) procedures. To this end we derive an unweighted network of protein-protein interactions from a set of 408 protein complexes from S. cervisiae hand curated in-house, and evaluate the performance of the two clustering algorithms in recalling the annotated complexes. In doing so the parameter space of each algorithm is sampled in order to select optimal values for these parameters, and the robustness of the algorithms is assessed by quantifying the level of complex recall as interactions are randomly added or removed to the network to simulate noise. To evaluate the performance on a weighted protein interaction graph, we also apply the two algorithms to the consolidated protein interaction network of S. cerevisiae, derived from genome scale purification experiments and to versions of this network in which varying proportions of the links have been randomly shuffled. CONCLUSION: Our analysis shows that the MCL procedure is significantly more tolerant to noise and behaves more robustly than the AP algorithm. The advantage of MCL over AP is dramatic for unweighted protein interaction graphs, as AP displays severe convergence problems on the majority of the unweighted graph versions that we tested, whereas MCL continues to identify meaningful clusters, albeit fewer of them, as the level of noise in the graph increases. MCL thus remains the method of choice for identifying protein complexes from binary interaction networks.

Reference Type
Journal Article | Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Authors
Vlasblom J, Wodak SJ
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 Gene Ontology Term Qualifier Aspect Evidence Method Source Assigned On Annotation Extension 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