↓ Skip to main content

Extracting high confidence protein interactions from affinity purification data: At the crossroads

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Proteomics, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
40 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Extracting high confidence protein interactions from affinity purification data: At the crossroads
Published in
Journal of Proteomics, March 2015
DOI 10.1016/j.jprot.2015.03.009
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shuye Pu, James Vlasblom, Andrei Turinsky, Edyta Marcon, Sadhna Phanse, Sandra Smiley Trimble, Jonathan Olsen, Jack Greenblatt, Andrew Emili, Shoshana J. Wodak

Abstract

Deriving protein-protein interactions from data generated by affinity-purification and mass spectrometry (AP-MS) techniques requires application of scoring methods to measure the reliability of detected putative interactions. Choosing the appropriate scoring method has become a major challenge. Here we apply six popular scoring methods to the same AP-MS dataset and compare their performance. The comparison was carried out for six distinct datasets from human, fly and yeast, which focus on different biological processes and differ in their coverage of the proteome. Results show that the performance of a given scoring method may vary substantially depending on the dataset. Disturbingly, we find that the high confidence (HC) PPI networks built by applying the six scoring methods to the same raw AP-MS dataset display very poor overlap, with only 1.7-4.1% of the HC interactions present in all the networks built, respectively, from the proteome-wide human, fly or yeast datasets. Various properties of the shared versus unique interactions in each network, including biases in protein abundance, suggest that current scoring methods are able to eliminate only the most obvious contaminants, but still fail to reliably single out specific interactions from the large body of spurious associations detected in the AP-MS experiments.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users 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 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Belgium 1 3%
Unknown 39 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 18 45%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 23%
Student > Master 4 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 8%
Student > Bachelor 2 5%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 2 5%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 18 45%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 23%
Chemistry 3 8%
Computer Science 2 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 3%
Other 4 10%
Unknown 3 8%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 04 May 2015.
All research outputs
#2,051,034
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Proteomics
#58
of 3,461 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,975
of 277,672 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Proteomics
#4
of 75 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,461 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
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 277,672 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 75 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.