Increasing the reliability of protein-protein interaction networks via non-convex semantic embedding

Neurocomputing

Volumn 121, Issue , 2013, Pages 99-107

  Zhu, Lin ^a   You, Zhu Hong ^b   Huang, De Shuang ^a  

^a TONGJI UNIVERSITY   (China)

^b SHENZHEN UNIVERSITY   (China)

Author keywords

Bioinformatics; Denoising; Non convex semantic embedding (NCSE); Protein protein interaction (PPI)

Indexed keywords

DE-NOISING; EXPERIMENTAL INTERACTIONS; HIGH-THROUGHPUT TECHNIQUE; NONCONVEX COST FUNCTIONS; PROTEIN-PROTEIN INTERACTION NETWORKS; PROTEIN-PROTEIN INTERACTIONS; SEMANTIC EMBEDDING; STRUCTURAL ASSUMPTION;

BIOINFORMATICS; RELIABILITY; SEMANTICS;

PROTEINS;

FUNGAL PROTEIN;

ALGORITHM; AREA UNDER THE CURVE; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; EMBEDDING; GEOMETRY; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; NON CONVEX SEMANTIC EMBEDDING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROTEIN PROTEIN INTERACTION; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; RELIABILITY; SACCHAROMYCES CEREVISIAE; STATISTICAL MODEL;

EID: 84884142621     PISSN: 09252312     EISSN: 18728286     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.neucom.2013.04.027     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. Ito T., Chiba T., Ozawa R., et al. A comprehensive two-hybrid analysis to explore the yeast protein interactome. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2001, 98:4569-4574.
2. Krogan N.J., Cagney G., Yu H.Y., et al. Global landscape of protein complexes in the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Nature 2006, 440:637-643.
3. Gavin A.C., Bosche M., Krause R., et al. Functional organization of the yeast proteome by systematic analysis of protein complexes. Nature 2002, 415:141-147.
4. Ho Y., Gruhler A., Heilbut A., et al. Systematic identification of protein complexes in Saccharomyces cerevisiae by mass spectrometry. Nature 2002, 415:180-183.
5. Uetz P., Giot L., Cagney G., et al. A comprehensive analysis of protein-protein interactions in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Nature 2000, 403:623-627.
6. Giot L., Bader J.S., Brouwer C., et al. A protein interaction map of Drosophila melanogaster. Science 2003, 302:1727-1736.
7. Morrison J.L., Breitling R., Higham D.J., et al. A lock-and-key model for protein-protein interactions. Bioinformatics 2006, 22:2012-2019.
8. Lappe M., Holm L. Unraveling protein interaction networks with near-optimal efficiency. Nat. Biotechnol. 2004, 22:98-103.
9. Edwards A.M., Kus B., Jansen R., et al. Bridging structural biology and genomics: assessing protein interaction data with known complexes. Trends Genet. 2002, 18:529-536.
10. Albert I., Albert R. Conserved network motifs allow protein-protein interaction prediction. Bioinformatics 2004, 20:3346-3352.
11. Deng M., Zhang K., Mehta S., et al. Prediction of protein function using protein-protein interaction data. J. Comput. Biol. 2003, 10:947-960.
12. Liu G., Li J., Wong L. Assessing and predicting protein interactions using both local and global network topological metrics. Genome Inf. 2008, 22:138-149.
13. Saito R., Suzuki H., Hayashizaki Y. Interaction generality, a measurement to assess the reliability of a protein-protein interaction. Nucl. Acids Res 2002, 30:1163-1168.
14. Saito R., Suzuki H., Hayashizaki Y. Construction of reliable protein-protein interaction networks with a new interaction generality measure. Bioinformatics 2003, 19:756-763.
15. Chen J., Hsu W., Lee M.L., et al. Discovering reliable protein interactions from high-throughput experimental data using network topology. Artif. Intell. Med. 2005, 35:37-47.
16. Brun C., Chevenet F., Martin D., et al. Functional classification of proteins for the prediction of cellular function from a protein-protein interaction network. Genome Biol. 2003, 5. r6.
17. Chua H.N., Sung W.K., Wong L. Exploiting indirect neighbours and topological weight to predict protein function from protein-protein interactions. Bioinformatics 2006, 22:1623-1630.
18. Chua H.N., Wong L. Increasing the reliability of protein interactomes. Drug Discovery Today 2008, 13:652-658.
19. D. Ucar, S. Parthasarathy, S. Asur, et al., Effective pre-processing strategies for functional clustering of a protein-protein interactions network, in: IEEE, 2005, pp. 129-136.
20. Clauset A., Moore C., Newman M.E.J. Hierarchical structure and the prediction of missing links in networks. Nature 2008, 453:98-101.
21. Kuchaiev O., Rasajski M., Higham D.J., et al. Geometric de-noising of protein-protein interaction networks. Plos Comput. Biol. 2009, 5:e1000454.
22. You Z.H., Lei Y.K., Gui J., et al. Using manifold embedding for assessing and predicting protein interactions from high-throughput experimental data. Bioinformatics 2010, 26:2744-2751.
23. Pržulj N. Biological network comparison using graphlet degree distribution. Bioinformatics 2007, 23:e177-e183.
24. Przulj N., Corneil D.G., Jurisica I. Modeling interactome: scale-free or geometric?. Bioinformatics 2004, 20:3508-3515.
25. Milenkovic T., Lai J., Przulj N. Graphcrunch: a tool for large network analyses. BMC Bioinformatics 2008, 9:70.
26. Higham D.J., Rasajski M., Przulji N. Fitting a geometric graph to a protein-protein interaction network. Bioinformatics 2008, 24:1093-1099.
27. N. Przulj, O. Kuchaiev, A. Stevanovic, et al., Geometric evolutionary dynamics of protein interaction networks, Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing 2009, 2010, pp. 178-189.
28. Terradot L., Durnell N., Li M., et al. Biochemical characterization of protein complexes from the Helicobacter pylori protein interaction map. Mol. Cell. Proteom. 2004, 3:809-819.
29. Tenenbaum J.B., De Silva V., Langford J.C. A global geometric framework for nonlinear dimensionality reduction. Science 2000, 290:2319-2323.
30. Belkin M., Niyogi P. Laplacian eigenmaps for dimensionality reduction and data representation. Neural Comput. 2003, 15:1373-1396.
31. Donoho D.L., Grimes C. Hessian eigenmaps: locally linear embedding techniques for high-dimensional data. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2003, 100:5591.
32. Lin T., Zha H. Riemannian manifold learning. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 2008, 30:796-809.
33. Roweis S.T., Saul L.K. Nonlinear dimensionality reduction by locally linear embedding. Science 2000, 290:2323-2326.
34. Zhang Z., Zha H. Principal manifolds and nonlinear dimensionality reduction via tangent space alignment. J. Shanghai Univ. (Engl. Ed.) 2004, 8:406-424.
35. K.Q. Weinberger, L.K. Saul, Unsupervised learning of image manifolds by semidefinite programming, in: IEEE, 2004, vol. 982, pp. II-988-II-995 .
36. L. Cayton, S. Dasgupta, Robust euclidean embedding, in: Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Machine Learning, 2006, pp. 169-176.
37. Fang Y., Benjamin W., Sun M.T., et al. Global geometric affinity for revealing high fidelity protein interaction network. PLoS One 2011, 6:e19349.
38. Gomez-Rodriguez M., Leskovec J., Krause A. Inferring networks of diffusion and influence. ACM Trans. Knowl. Discov. Data (TKDD) 2012, 5:21.
39. Ding N., Vishwanathan S. t-Logistic regression. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. (NIPS) 2010.
40. H. Masnadi-Shirazi, V. Mahadevan, N. Vasconcelos, On the design of robust classifiers for computer vision, in IEEE, 2010, pp. 779-786.
41. Reid M.D., Williamson R.C. Composite binary losses. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2010, 11:2387-2422.
42. Long P.M., Servedio R.A. Random classification noise defeats all convex potential boosters. Mach. Learn. 2010, 78:287-304.
43. Wu Y.C., Liu Y.F. Robust truncated hinge loss support vector machines. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 2007, 102:974-983.
44. Yu Y., Yang M., Xu L., et al. Relaxed clipping: a global training method for robust regression and classification. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 2011, 23.
45. Wang L., Jia H., Li J. Training robust support vector machine with smooth Ramp loss in the primal space. Neurocomputing 2008, 71:3020-3025.
46. Ertekin S., Bottou L., Giles C.L. Nonconvex online support vector machines. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 2011, 33:368-381.
47. V.S. Denchev, N. Ding, S. Vishwanathan, et al., Robust classification with adiabatic quantum optimization, Arxiv preprint arXiv:1205.1148, 2012.
48. Ding N., Vishwanathan S., Qi Y. t-divergence based approximate inference. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. (NIPS) 2011.
49. Sears T.D. Generalized Maximum Entropy, Convexity and Machine Learning 2008, Australian National University.
50. Watts D.J., Strogatz S.H. Collective dynamics of 'small-world' networks. Nature 1998, 393:440-442.
51. Nocedal J., Wright S.J. Numerical Optimization 2006, Springer, Verlag.
52. Paige C.C., Saunders M.A. Lsqr-an algorithm for sparse linear-equations and sparse least-squares. ACM T. Math Software 1982, 8:43-71.
53. Golub G.H., Van Loan C.F. Matrix Computations 1996, Johns Hopkins University Press Baltimore, MD, USA.
54. Gavin A.C., Aloy P., Grandi P., et al. Proteome survey reveals modularity of the yeast cell machinery. Nature 2006, 440:631-636.
55. Collins S.R., Kemmeren P., Zhao X.C., et al. Toward a comprehensive atlas of the physical interactome of Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Mol. Cell. Proteom. 2007, 6:439-450.
56. Tong A.H.Y., Lesage G., Bader G.D., et al. Global mapping of the yeast genetic interaction network. Science's STKE 2004, 303:808.
57. Mrowka R., Patzak A., Herzel H. Is there a bias in proteome research?. Genome Res. 2001, 11:1971-1973.
58. Oliver S. Guilt-by-association goes global. Nature 2000, 403:601-603.