2009
DOI: 10.1089/cmb.2009.0099
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Automatic Parameter Learning for Multiple Local Network Alignment

Abstract: We developed Graemlin 2.0, a new multiple network aligner with (1) a new multi-stage approach to local network alignment; (2) a novel scoring function that can use arbitrary features of a multiple network alignment, such as protein deletions, protein duplications, protein mutations, and interaction losses; (3) a parameter learning algorithm that uses a training set of known network alignments to learn parameters for our scoring function and thereby adapt it to any set of networks; and (4) an algorithm that use… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
64
0

Year Published

2010
2010
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
4
3
3

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 70 publications
(64 citation statements)
references
References 40 publications
0
64
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Local network alignments attempt to align small subsets of nodes between multiple networks, whereas global network alignments attempt to find the best alignment of all nodes in one network with another (Singh et al, 2008). Various heuristics exist for global alignment of two or more networks, and typically these methods first use homology to prioritize the alignment of nodes and then incorporate a measure of topology to refine alignments (Hu et al, 2005;Flannick et al, 2009;Kalaev et al, 2009;Liao et al, 2009;Zaslavskiy et al, 2009;Chindelevitch et al, 2010). Some methods strictly use topology to guide alignments (Kuchaiev et al, 2010), given that network motifs are often conserved in functionally related systems Shen-Orr et al, 2002).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Local network alignments attempt to align small subsets of nodes between multiple networks, whereas global network alignments attempt to find the best alignment of all nodes in one network with another (Singh et al, 2008). Various heuristics exist for global alignment of two or more networks, and typically these methods first use homology to prioritize the alignment of nodes and then incorporate a measure of topology to refine alignments (Hu et al, 2005;Flannick et al, 2009;Kalaev et al, 2009;Liao et al, 2009;Zaslavskiy et al, 2009;Chindelevitch et al, 2010). Some methods strictly use topology to guide alignments (Kuchaiev et al, 2010), given that network motifs are often conserved in functionally related systems Shen-Orr et al, 2002).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The main disadvantage of this approach is that it involves to estimate many parameters. Recently, a supervised, automated parameter learner was proposed to lessen the burden of parameter tuning (Flannick et al, 2009). Another phylogeny-guided local network alignment was proposed by Kalaev et al (2008).…”
Section: Multiple Protein Network Alignmentmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Grmlin 2.0 [7], developed by Flannick et al, includes a new scoring function and a parameter learning process for multiple network alignments under the given training aligned network samples. The scoring function takes account of the cost of protein deletions, protein duplications, protein mutations, and interaction losses as features for the learning.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%