What you see is not what you get: How sampling affects macroscopic features of biological networks

Interface Focus

Volumn 1, Issue 6, 2011, Pages 836-856

  Annibale, A ^a   Coolen, A C C ^a,b,c  

^a KING'S COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b KING'S COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^c London Institute for Mathematical Sciences   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Biological networks; Detection bias sampling; Networks ensembles

Indexed keywords

EID: 84860890789     PISSN: 20428898     EISSN: 20428901     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1098/rsfs.2011.0050     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Prasad, T. S. K. et al. 2009 Human protein reference database-2009 update. Nucleic Acids Res. 37, D767-D772. (doi:10.1093/nar/gkn892)
2. Fernandes, L. P., Annibale, A., Kleinjung, J., Coolen, A. C. C. & Fraternali, F. 2010 Protein networks reveal detection bias and species consistency when analysed by information-theoretic methods. PLoS ONE 5, e12083. (doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0012083)
3. Stumpf, M. P. H. & Wiuf, C. 2005 Sampling properties of random graphs: the degree distribution. Phys. Rev. E 72, 036118. (doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.72. 036118)
4. Stumpf, M. P. H., Wiuf, C. & May, R. M. 2005 Subnets of scale-free networks are not scale-free: sampling properties of networks. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 1.2, 4221-4224. (doi:10.1073/pnas.0501179102)
5. Han, J. D. J., Dupuy, D., Bertin, N., Cusick, M. E. & Vidal, M. 2005 Effect of sampling on topology predictions of protein-protein interaction networks. Nat. Biotechnol. 23, 839-844. (doi:10.1038/nbt1116)
6. Lee, S. H., Kim, P.-J. & Jeong, H. 2006 Statistical properties of sampled networks. Phys. Rev. E 73, 016102. (doi:10. 1103/PhysRevE.73.016102)
7. De Silva, E., Thorne, T., Ingram, P., Agrafioti, I., Swire, J., Wiuf, C. & Stumpf, M. P. H. 2006 The effects of incomplete protein interaction data on structural and evolutionary inferences. BMC Biol. 4, 39. (doi:10.1186/1741-7007-4-39)
8. Viger, F., Barrat, A., Dall' Asta, L., Zhang, C. H. & Kolaczyk, E. D. 2007 What is the real size of a sampled network? The case of the internet. Phys. Rev. E 75, 056111. (doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.75.056111)
9. Solokov, I. M. & Eliazar, I. I. 2010 Sampling from scale-free networks and the matchmaking paradox. Phys. Rev. E 81, 026107. (doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.81.026107)
10. Annibale, A., Coolen, A. C. C., Fernandes, L. P., Fraternali, F. & Kleinjung, J. 2009 Tailored graph ensembles as proxies or null models for real networks I: tools for quantifying structure. J. Phys. A Math. Theor. 42, 485001. See http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.1759.
11. Coolen, A. C. C., De Martino, A. & Annibale, A. 2009 Constrained Markovian dynamics of random graphs. J. Stat. Phys. 136, 1035-1067. (doi:10.1007/s10955-009-9821-2)
12. Coolen, A. C. C., Fraternali, F., Annibale, A., Fernandes, L. P. & Kleinjung, J. In press. Modelling biological networks via tailored random graphs. Handb. Stat. Syst. Biol.
13. Simonis, N. et al. 2009 Empirically controlled mapping of the Caenorhabditis elegans protein-protein interactome network. Nat. Methods 6, 47-54. (doi:10.1038/nmeth.1279)
14. Chuang, H. Y., Lee, E., Liu, Y. T., Lee, D. & Ideker, T. 2007 Network-based classification of breast cancer metastasis. Mol. Syst. Biol. 3, 1-10. (doi:10.1038/msb4100180)
15. Rapaport, F., Zinovyev, A., Dutreix, M., Barillot, E. & Vert, J. P. 2007 Classification of microarray data using gene networks. BMC Bioinf. 8, 35. (doi:10.1186/1471-2105-8-35)
16. Taylor, I. W. et al. 2009 Dynamic modularity in protein interaction networks predicts breast cancer outcome. Nat. Biotechnol. 27, 199-204. (doi:10.1038/nbt.1522)