2019
DOI: 10.1016/j.physa.2019.122204
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A comprehensive statistical study of metabolic and protein–protein interaction network properties

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
12
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(12 citation statements)
references
References 39 publications
0
12
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The STRING database, in particular, has been used frequently as a tool for inferring missing protein activities in genomes thereby extending or increasing the protein repertoire of organisms including pathogenic organisms [48,49]. There have been recent instances in the literature of fitting the power-law distribution to PPI networks generated using STRING data [50,51]. For a PPI network generated using a threshold of 0.9, only a fraction of the nodes (from the right tail of the distribution) fit the Power-law function [50].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The STRING database, in particular, has been used frequently as a tool for inferring missing protein activities in genomes thereby extending or increasing the protein repertoire of organisms including pathogenic organisms [48,49]. There have been recent instances in the literature of fitting the power-law distribution to PPI networks generated using STRING data [50,51]. For a PPI network generated using a threshold of 0.9, only a fraction of the nodes (from the right tail of the distribution) fit the Power-law function [50].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…There have been recent instances in the literature of fitting the power-law distribution to PPI networks generated using STRING data [50,51]. For a PPI network generated using a threshold of 0.9, only a fraction of the nodes (from the right tail of the distribution) fit the Power-law function [50]. In the other case, networks generated for 3 sets of differentially expressed genes (upregulated, downregulated, and total) using data from the STRING database version 10 with a confidence threshold of 0.4, all followed the Power-law with R2 values of 0.749, 0.859, and 0.836 respectively [51].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In the LFR benchmark, the network vertices are generated with a degree distribution that follows a power-law function and then assigned to communities whose sizes distribution is also a scale-free function, though the exponents of the two distributions may be different. The use of scale-free functions for the degree distribution of vertices in a network is inspired by many works in the field [27,28,29], though some other works dispute this claim [30,31,32]. The benchmark then connects the nodes among them such that a fraction µ of each vertex connections will be with nodes from the same community while the remaining fraction 1 − µ is with nodes from other communities.…”
Section: Benchmarksmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Regardless of the layout, metabolic networks typically contain many poorly connected nodes interconnected by a few heavily connected nodes (the hubs), the latter being especially associated with cofactors such as ATP, NADH, glutamate and coenzyme A [29] . Consequently, the node connectivity, defined as the number of edges per node, shows a heavy-tailed probability distribution [30] , [31] , [32] , [33] , [34] , [35] , [36] . Furthermore, metabolic networks have a non-random topology and are likely organized in a hierarchical modular structure ( Fig.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%