|
Resolution: standard / high Figure 3.
MAPK interactome analysis and validation. (a) Overlap of the Vinayagam (blue) and Bandyopadhyay (red) datasets (left). The study
by Bandyopadhyay et al. reveals 2,269 interactions with 641 'core' interactions supported by multiple lines
of evidence, whereas the Vinayagam dataset has 2,626 interactions connecting 1,126
proteins. Differences in the two experimental techniques are highlighted by the fact
that only 170 nodes and 6 interactions overlap in the two sets. (b) Coev2Net predicted high-confidence network is shown on the right. Edge colors correspond
to the dataset they come from. MAPK6 has the highest degree, and its label is shown
explicitly. (c) Comparisons of performance on MAPK network for Coev2Net and Struct2Net (iWRAP+DBLRAP)
[32,49,66] in terms of sensitivity and specificity. Coev2Net performs much better than previous
methods on this dataset (core network of Bandyopadhyay et al.), and its performance is robust with respect to the randomness in MCMC sampling.
The classifier (Figure 2) is trained and tested via five-fold cross-validation on
the core network. The MCMC procedure is repeated five times to assess robustness of
the predictions and the corresponding error bars are indicated. 'Baseline' method
represents a logistic regression classifier with just the alignment features and no
PPI (inter-protein) features. (d) Experimental validation of predicted high-confidence interactions using LUMIER assay.
Typically a fold increase of 1.5 is considered as a true positive.
Hosur et al. Genome Biology 2012 13:R76 doi:10.1186/gb-2012-13-8-r76 |