Usefulness and limitations of dK random graph models to predict interactions and functional homogeneity in biological networks under a pseudo-likelihood parameter estimation approach

BackgroundMany aspects of biological functions can be modeled by biological networks, such as protein interaction networks, metabolic networks, and gene coexpression networks. Studying the statistical properties of these networks in turn allows us to infer biological function. Complex statistical network models can potentially more accurately describe the networks, but it is not clear whether such complex models are better suited to find biologically meaningful subnetworks.ResultsRecent studies have shown that the degree distribution of the nodes is not an adequate statistic in many molecular networks. We sought to extend this statistic with 2nd and 3rd order degree correlations and developed a pseudo-likelihood approach to estimate the parameters. The approach was used to analyze the MIPS and BIOGRID yeast protein interaction networks, and two yeast coexpression networks. We showed that 2nd order degree correlation information gave better predictions of gene interactions in both protein interaction and gene coexpression networks. However, in the biologically important task of predicting functionally homogeneous modules, degree correlation information performs marginally better in the case of the MIPS and BIOGRID protein interaction networks, but worse in the case of gene coexpression networks.ConclusionOur use of dK models showed that incorporation of degree correlations could increase predictive power in some contexts, albeit sometimes marginally, but, in all contexts, the use of third-order degree correlations decreased accuracy. However, it is possible that other parameter estimation methods, such as maximum likelihood, will show the usefulness of incorporating 2nd and 3rd degree correlations in predicting functionally homogeneous modules.

[1]  Roded Sharan,et al.  Revealing modularity and organization in the yeast molecular network by integrated analysis of highly heterogeneous genomewide data. , 2004, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[2]  Priya Mahadevan,et al.  Systematic topology analysis and generation using degree correlations , 2006, SIGCOMM.

[3]  Albert-László Barabási,et al.  Scale-free networks , 2008, Scholarpedia.

[4]  Dennis B. Troup,et al.  NCBI GEO: mining tens of millions of expression profiles—database and tools update , 2006, Nucleic Acids Res..

[5]  Alan M. Frieze,et al.  Random graphs , 2006, SODA '06.

[6]  M. Ashburner,et al.  Gene Ontology: tool for the unification of biology , 2000, Nature Genetics.

[7]  Duncan J. Watts,et al.  Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’ networks , 1998, Nature.

[8]  Albert,et al.  Emergence of scaling in random networks , 1999, Science.

[9]  Dmitrij Frishman,et al.  MIPS: analysis and annotation of genome information in 2007 , 2007, Nucleic Acids Res..

[10]  F. Chung,et al.  Connected Components in Random Graphs with Given Expected Degree Sequences , 2002 .

[11]  Roded Sharan,et al.  Discovering statistically significant biclusters in gene expression data , 2002, ISMB.

[12]  Mike Tyers,et al.  BioGRID: a general repository for interaction datasets , 2005, Nucleic Acids Res..

[13]  C. D. Gelatt,et al.  Optimization by Simulated Annealing , 1983, Science.

[14]  S. Shen-Orr,et al.  Superfamilies of Evolved and Designed Networks , 2004, Science.