↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of module detection algorithms in protein networks and investigation of the biological meaning of predicted modules

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Bioinformatics, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Readers on

mendeley
57 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Comparison of module detection algorithms in protein networks and investigation of the biological meaning of predicted modules
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, March 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12859-016-0979-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shailesh Tripathi, Salissou Moutari, Matthias Dehmer, Frank Emmert-Streib

Abstract

It is generally acknowledged that a functional understanding of a biological system can only be obtained by an understanding of the collective of molecular interactions in form of biological networks. Protein networks are one particular network type of special importance, because proteins form the functional base units of every biological cell. On a mesoscopic level of protein networks, modules are of significant importance because these building blocks may be the next elementary functional level above individual proteins allowing to gain insight into fundamental organizational principles of biological cells. In this paper, we provide a comparative analysis of five popular and four novel module detection algorithms. We study these module prediction methods for simulated benchmark networks as well as 10 biological protein interaction networks (PINs). A particular focus of our analysis is placed on the biological meaning of the predicted modules by utilizing the Gene Ontology (GO) database as gold standard for the definition of biological processes. Furthermore, we investigate the robustness of the results by perturbing the PINs simulating in this way our incomplete knowledge of protein networks. Overall, our study reveals that there is a large heterogeneity among the different module prediction algorithms if one zooms-in the biological level of biological processes in the form of GO terms and all methods are severely affected by a slight perturbation of the networks. However, we also find pathways that are enriched in multiple modules, which could provide important information about the hierarchical organization of the system.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 57 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Denmark 1 2%
Unknown 55 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 23%
Researcher 12 21%
Student > Master 8 14%
Student > Bachelor 5 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 5%
Other 6 11%
Unknown 10 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 18 32%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 13 23%
Computer Science 7 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Other 5 9%
Unknown 11 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 April 2016.
All research outputs
#13,462,624
of 22,856,968 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#4,201
of 7,293 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#146,062
of 300,781 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#75
of 129 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,856,968 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,293 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 300,781 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 129 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.