↓ Skip to main content

What Evidence Is There for the Homology of Protein-Protein Interactions?

Overview of attention for article published in PLoS Computational Biology, September 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
38 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
168 Mendeley
citeulike
17 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
What Evidence Is There for the Homology of Protein-Protein Interactions?
Published in
PLoS Computational Biology, September 2012
DOI 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002645
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anna C. F. Lewis, Nick S. Jones, Mason A. Porter, Charlotte M. Deane

Abstract

The notion that sequence homology implies functional similarity underlies much of computational biology. In the case of protein-protein interactions, an interaction can be inferred between two proteins on the basis that sequence-similar proteins have been observed to interact. The use of transferred interactions is common, but the legitimacy of such inferred interactions is not clear. Here we investigate transferred interactions and whether data incompleteness explains the lack of evidence found for them. Using definitions of homology associated with functional annotation transfer, we estimate that conservation rates of interactions are low even after taking interactome incompleteness into account. For example, at a blastp E-value threshold of 10(-70), we estimate the conservation rate to be about 11 % between S. cerevisiae and H. sapiens. Our method also produces estimates of interactome sizes (which are similar to those previously proposed). Using our estimates of interaction conservation we estimate the rate at which protein-protein interactions are lost across species. To our knowledge, this is the first such study based on large-scale data. Previous work has suggested that interactions transferred within species are more reliable than interactions transferred across species. By controlling for factors that are specific to within-species interaction prediction, we propose that the transfer of interactions within species might be less reliable than transfers between species. Protein-protein interactions appear to be very rarely conserved unless very high sequence similarity is observed. Consequently, inferred interactions should be used with care.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 6 4%
Germany 3 2%
United Kingdom 3 2%
Spain 2 1%
Colombia 2 1%
Canada 2 1%
India 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Other 4 2%
Unknown 143 85%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 50 30%
Student > Ph. D. Student 47 28%
Student > Master 17 10%
Student > Bachelor 14 8%
Professor 7 4%
Other 19 11%
Unknown 14 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 82 49%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 38 23%
Computer Science 10 6%
Chemistry 7 4%
Mathematics 3 2%
Other 9 5%
Unknown 19 11%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 28 September 2012.
All research outputs
#16,721,717
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from PLoS Computational Biology
#7,219
of 8,960 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#120,851
of 188,919 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS Computational Biology
#78
of 118 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,960 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.4. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% 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 188,919 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 118 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.