Superfamilies of Evolved and Designed Networks

Science

Volumn 303, Issue 5663, 2004, Pages 1538-1542

  Milo, Ron ^a   Itzkovitz, Shalev ^a   Kashtan, Nadav ^a   Levitt, Reuven ^a   Shen Orr, Shai ^a   Ayzenshtat, Inbal ^a   Sheffer, Michal ^a   Alon, Uri ^a  

^a WEIZMANN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE   (Israel)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DATA PROCESSING; MICROORGANISMS; NEUROLOGY; PROTEINS;

GENETIC NETWORKS; NEURONAL WIRING;

GENETIC ENGINEERING;

ANALYTICAL METHOD; NETWORK ANALYSIS;

ARTICLE; DEVELOPMENTAL GENETICS; INFORMATION PROCESSING; MICROORGANISM; MOLECULAR BIOLOGY; NERVE CELL; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROTEIN STRUCTURE; SOCIAL ASPECT; TECHNOLOGY;

ANIMALS; CAENORHABDITIS ELEGANS; DROSOPHILA MELANOGASTER; EVOLUTION; FEEDBACK, BIOCHEMICAL; HUMANS; INTERNET; LANGUAGE; LINGUISTICS; MATHEMATICS; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; MODELS, THEORETICAL; NERVE NET; PROBABILITY; PROTEINS; SEA URCHINS; SIGNAL TRANSDUCTION; SOCIAL SUPPORT; SYNAPSES; SYSTEMS THEORY; TRANSCRIPTION, GENETIC;

EID: 1542287343     PISSN: 00368075     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1126/science.1089167     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. S. H. Strogatz, Nature 410, Z68 (2001).
2. M. Newman, SIAM Rev. 45, 167 (2003).
3. A. L. Barabasi, R. Albert, Science 286, 509 (1999).
4. D. J. Watts, S. H. Strogatz, Nature 393, 440 (1998).
5. S. Maslov, K. Sneppen, Science 296, 910 (2002).
6. S. Shen-Orr, R. Milo, S. Mangan, U. Alon, Nature Genet. 31, 64 (2002).
7. R. Milo et al., Science 298, 824 (2002).
8. N. Rosenfetd, M. B. Elowitz, U. Alon, J. Mol. Biol. 323, 78S (2002).
9. S. Mangan, U. Alon, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 100, 11980 (2003).
10. S. Mangan, A. Zaslaver, U. Alon, J. Mol. Biol. 334, 197 (2003).
11. The algorithm of (7) (available at www.weizmann.ac.il/mcb/UriAlon; see also http://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0312028 and N. Kashtan et al., Bioinformatics, in press) was used to generate randomized networks and to calculate the subgraph numbers in the real and randomized networks. The randomized networks preserved the number of incoming and outgoing edges for each node, as well as the number of mutual edges for each node (a mutual edge between x and y corresponds to x→y and y→x).
12. The algorithm of (7) (available at www.weizmann.ac.il/mcb/UriAlon; see also http://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0312028 and N. Kashtan et al., Bioinformatics, in press) was used to generate randomized networks and to calculate the subgraph numbers in the real and randomized networks. The randomized networks preserved the number of incoming and outgoing edges for each node, as well as the number of mutual edges for each node (a mutual edge between x and y corresponds to x→y and y→x).
13. Networks and their sources are listed in table S1. Neural synapses of C. elegans included all data except those for muscle cells. Unlike (7), all connections were used, not only those with ≥5 synapses. Our definition of the TSP can be sensitive to rare events of a mutual edge within a network. We omitted mutual edges in networks where mutual edges make up <0.1% of the total number of edges (TRANSC-YEAST with one mutual edge, and TRANSC-YEAST-2 with two).
14. D. Thieffry, A. M. Huerta, E. Perez-Rueda, J. Collado Vides, Bioessays 20, 433 (1998).
15. T. Ishii, K. Yoshida, G. Terai, Y. Fujita, K. Nakai, Nucleic Acids Res. 29, 278 (2001).
16. T. I. Lee et al., Science 298, 799 (2002).
17. N. Rosenfeld, U. Alon, J. Mol. Biol. 329, 64S (2003).
18. G. Lahav et al., Nature Genet. 36, 147 (2004).
19. M. B. Elowitz, S. Leibler, Nature 403, 33S (2000).
20. J. J. Tyson, K. C. Chen, B. Novak, Curr. Opin. Cell Biol. 15, 221 (2003).
21. E. H. Davidson et al., Science 295, 1669 (2002).
22. J. P. Eckmann, E. Moses, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 99, 582S (2002).
23. M. A. J. Van Duijn, M. Huisman, F. N. Stokman, F. W. Wasseur, E. P. H. Zeggelink, J. Math. Sociol. 27 (2003).
24. P. Holland, S. Leinhardt, D. Heise, Eds., in Sociological Methodology (Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, 1975), pp. 1-45.
25. D. Cartwright, F. Harary, Psychol. Rev. 63, 277 (1956).
26. R. F. Cancho, R. V. Sole, Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. B. 268, 2261 (2001).
27. J. Allen, Natural Language Understanding (Pearson Addison Wesley, ed. 2, 1995).
28. i). Even though they show similar TSP profiles, networks of different types in the same superfamily can show quite different concentration distributions (SOM Text). The TSP can therefore highlight similarities that are not evident from merely counting subgraphs.
29. J. Berg, M. Lassig, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 228701 (2002).
30. K. I. Goh, E. Oh, H. Jeong, B. Kahng, D. Kim, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 99, 12583 (2002).
31. We thank J. P. Eckmann, A. L. Barabasi, F. N. Stokman, M. A. J. Van Duijn, and the STKE, COSIN, GeNet, DBTBS, YPD, regulonDB, PDB database teams for valuable data sets, and M. E. J. Newmann, D. Chklovskii, M. Ronen, M. Lapidot, and I. Yanai for discussions. We thank NIH, Israel Science Foundation, and Minerva for support. R.M. is supported by a doctoral fellowship from the Horowitz Complexity Science Foundation.