↓ Skip to main content

Network Compression as a Quality Measure for Protein Interaction Networks

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, June 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
49 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
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
Network Compression as a Quality Measure for Protein Interaction Networks
Published in
PLOS ONE, June 2012
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0035729
Pubmed ID
Authors

Loic Royer, Matthias Reimann, A. Francis Stewart, Michael Schroeder

Abstract

With the advent of large-scale protein interaction studies, there is much debate about data quality. Can different noise levels in the measurements be assessed by analyzing network structure? Because proteomic regulation is inherently co-operative, modular and redundant, it is inherently compressible when represented as a network. Here we propose that network compression can be used to compare false positive and false negative noise levels in protein interaction networks. We validate this hypothesis by first confirming the detrimental effect of false positives and false negatives. Second, we show that gold standard networks are more compressible. Third, we show that compressibility correlates with co-expression, co-localization, and shared function. Fourth, we also observe correlation with better protein tagging methods, physiological expression in contrast to over-expression of tagged proteins, and smart pooling approaches for yeast two-hybrid screens. Overall, this new measure is a proxy for both sensitivity and specificity and gives complementary information to standard measures such as average degree and clustering coefficients.

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 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 4%
Germany 1 2%
Mexico 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Luxembourg 1 2%
Unknown 43 88%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 27%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 20%
Professor 5 10%
Student > Master 4 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 6%
Other 10 20%
Unknown 4 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 18 37%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 14%
Computer Science 4 8%
Engineering 3 6%
Chemistry 2 4%
Other 9 18%
Unknown 6 12%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 05 June 2020.
All research outputs
#6,673,538
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#83,820
of 202,026 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#45,734
of 165,834 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#1,269
of 3,885 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 202,026 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% 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 165,834 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3,885 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.