↓ Skip to main content

Counting motifs in dynamic networks

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Systems Biology, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
22 Mendeley
Title
Counting motifs in dynamic networks
Published in
BMC Systems Biology, April 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12918-018-0533-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kingshuk Mukherjee, Md Mahmudul Hasan, Christina Boucher, Tamer Kahveci

Abstract

A network motif is a sub-network that occurs frequently in a given network. Detection of such motifs is important since they uncover functions and local properties of the given biological network. Finding motifs is however a computationally challenging task as it requires solving the costly subgraph isomorphism problem. Moreover, the topology of biological networks change over time. These changing networks are called dynamic biological networks. As the network evolves, frequency of each motif in the network also changes. Computing the frequency of a given motif from scratch in a dynamic network as the network topology evolves is infeasible, particularly for large and fast evolving networks. In this article, we design and develop a scalable method for counting the number of motifs in a dynamic biological network. Our method incrementally updates the frequency of each motif as the underlying network's topology evolves. Our experiments demonstrate that our method can update the frequency of each motif in orders of magnitude faster than counting the motif embeddings every time the network changes. If the network evolves more frequently, the margin with which our method outperforms the existing static methods, increases. We evaluated our method extensively using synthetic and real datasets, and show that our method is highly accurate(≥ 96%) and that it can be scaled to large dense networks. The results on real data demonstrate the utility of our method in revealing interesting insights on the evolution of biological processes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 22 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 23%
Student > Master 3 14%
Professor 2 9%
Researcher 2 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 9%
Other 5 23%
Unknown 3 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 7 32%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 18%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 9%
Unspecified 1 5%
Psychology 1 5%
Other 4 18%
Unknown 3 14%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 April 2018.
All research outputs
#20,480,611
of 23,041,514 outputs
Outputs from BMC Systems Biology
#1,011
of 1,144 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#290,344
of 329,169 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Systems Biology
#31
of 44 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,041,514 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,144 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.6. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 329,169 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 44 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.