2017
DOI: 10.1016/j.biosystems.2017.08.005
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

INDEX: Incremental depth extension approach for protein–protein interaction networks alignment

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
10
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
2
1

Relationship

2
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 22 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 42 publications
0
10
0
Order By: Relevance
“…To our knowledge, in order to gain biological relevance, every other network alignment algorithm applied to PPI networks has had to guide the alignment with objective functions that include protein-pair sequence similarities, in order to encourage sequence-and thus functionally-similar protein pairs to align to each other. This fact has led to a widespread belief in a so-called "sequence-topology trade-off" 23,28 , so that virtually every alignment algorithm either imposes sequence-based restrictions [25][26][27][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37] , or has a literal trade-off in an objective function of the form αT (a) + (1 − α)S(a), where a is an alignment, T (a) measures the topological similarity exposed by the alignment according to some topological measure, S(a) is an objective based on sequence similarity, and α is a balancing parameter that makes the trade-off explicit 18,23,[38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53] . Virtually all methods that use the explicit trade-off have found that functional similarity is positively correlated with the weight given to sequence, and negatively correlated with the weight given to topology 15,23,35,38,40 .…”
Section: The Sequence-topology "Trade-off"mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To our knowledge, in order to gain biological relevance, every other network alignment algorithm applied to PPI networks has had to guide the alignment with objective functions that include protein-pair sequence similarities, in order to encourage sequence-and thus functionally-similar protein pairs to align to each other. This fact has led to a widespread belief in a so-called "sequence-topology trade-off" 23,28 , so that virtually every alignment algorithm either imposes sequence-based restrictions [25][26][27][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37] , or has a literal trade-off in an objective function of the form αT (a) + (1 − α)S(a), where a is an alignment, T (a) measures the topological similarity exposed by the alignment according to some topological measure, S(a) is an objective based on sequence similarity, and α is a balancing parameter that makes the trade-off explicit 18,23,[38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53] . Virtually all methods that use the explicit trade-off have found that functional similarity is positively correlated with the weight given to sequence, and negatively correlated with the weight given to topology 15,23,35,38,40 .…”
Section: The Sequence-topology "Trade-off"mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…If it passes the position test then go to actual sequences, i.e., reference genome and patient's Chromosome 9. Use a seed and extend approach [13] to find the actual inverted string which might be longer than 6 nucleotides. The limitation of this method is that inversions of shorter lengths than 6 nucleotides cannot be found.…”
Section: Algorithm 1 Production Of Hash-based Genome Index Void Hashi...mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Moreover, the topological structure information of the network, which is an external attribute of proteins, can also be incorporated. The majority of the PPI network alignment algorithms use a combination of sequence similarity and topological similarity [13][14][15].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%