Cell Systems Perspective Cross-Disciplinary Network Comparison : Matchmaking between Hairballs

Approach: Comparison Leverages Mathematical Formalism Let us first focus on the abstract association approach to biological networks, whose power lies in the simplicity of its formalism. A key point of comparison between various complex systems focuses on topology. The earliest and probably most important observation is that many networks organize themselves into scale-free architectures in which the majority of the nodes contain very few connections, while a few (also called ‘‘hubs’’) are highly connected (Box 1) (Barabasi and Albert, 1999). A surprising variety of networks exhibit scale-free architecture; for example, the Internet, air transport routes, and many social networks (Barabasi, 2003). Another important notion is that of a small-world network, in which any two nodes are, on average, separated by only a few steps (Box 1). Scale-free networks are also small-world networks because hubs ensure that the distance between any Box 1. Network Terminology Degree: The number of neighbors of a node. Scale-free networks: The degree distribution of the network is a statistical property that can be used to understand some of the organizing principles of the network. The degree distribution of a random network is a Poisson distribution. Most real-world networks, including biological networks, are organized in the form of scale-free networks that contain a small number of hubs that are highly connected in the network. The degree distribution in a scale-free network is better modeled as a power-law distribution. Hubs in a scale-free network also lead to the formation of small-world networks. Betweenness: The number of paths passing a node. Similar in spirit to heavily used bridges, highways, or intersections in transportation networks, a few centrally connected nodes funnel most of the paths between different parts of the network. High-betweenness nodes are referred to as ‘‘bottlenecks,’’ and the removal of these nodes could reduce the efficiency of communication between nodes (Newman, 2001). Small-world network: A small-world network is a kind of network in which the distance between nodes in the network is much smaller than the size of the network even though most nodes are not connected to one another. Typically, the average distance between any two nodes in a small-world network scales as the logarithm of the number of nodes in the network. Cliques: Cliques are defined as sub-networks in the graph that are completely connected, i.e., every pair of nodes in a clique contains an edge connecting them. Cliques form a single cohesive group in social networks, and such groups tend to act together. Similarly, a clique can be formed from a large biomolecular complex, such as a ribosome, that functions as a single unit. This property of cliques has been used to find missing edges to predict the function of biomolecules. Modules (community structure of networks): Most real-world networks can be divided into smaller modules that have a large density of internal edges but relatively fewer edges that connect nodes from different modules. For instance, social networks tend to have communities within them due to the relatively larger number of interactions between people in the same neighborhood, school, or workplace. Similarly, in a biological context, a large number of biological components can form a single functional macromolecular complex, such as the ribosome. Awide variety ofmethods have been developed to uncover themodular structure of networks. Most of thesemethods are based on optimizing themodularity of the network that compares the number of intraand inter-module links within the network. PageRank algorithm: PageRank is a prominent example of measuring the importance of a node by taking into account the importance of its neighbors. Originally developed in social network analysis (Katz, 1953), PageRank utilizes an algorithm developed to rank relevant documents based on the rank of thewebsites that link to this document in a self-consistentmanner—i.e., being linked to by higher-ranking nodes has a larger impact on the document’s ranking. This algorithm has been applied to food webs to prioritize species that are in danger of extinction (Allesina and Pascual, 2009) and has also been used to rank marker genes and predict clinical outcome for cancers (Winter et al., 2012). Cell Systems

[1]  Mark Gerstein,et al.  Loregic: A Method to Characterize the Cooperative Logic of Regulatory Factors , 2015, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[2]  A. Barabasi,et al.  Uncovering disease-disease relationships through the incomplete interactome , 2015, Science.

[3]  Mark Gerstein,et al.  OrthoClust: an orthology-based network framework for clustering data across multiple species , 2014, Genome Biology.

[4]  Peter J. Bickel,et al.  Comparative analysis of regulatory information and circuits across distant species , 2014, Nature.

[5]  Andrey Rzhetsky,et al.  DiseaseConnect: a comprehensive web server for mechanism-based disease–disease connections , 2014, Nucleic Acids Res..

[6]  S. Thurner,et al.  Spreading of diseases through comorbidity networks across life and gender , 2014, 1405.3801.

[7]  H. Abelaira,et al.  The role of mTOR in depression and antidepressant responses. , 2014, Life sciences.

[8]  R. Sarpeshkar Analog synthetic biology , 2014, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences.

[9]  Jari Saramäki,et al.  Temporal Networks , 2011, Encyclopedia of Social Network Analysis and Mining.

[10]  Daniel N. Wilson Ribosome-targeting antibiotics and mechanisms of bacterial resistance , 2013, Nature Reviews Microbiology.

[11]  Wei Niu,et al.  Coexpression Networks Implicate Human Midfetal Deep Cortical Projection Neurons in the Pathogenesis of Autism , 2013, Cell.

[12]  Henry Kennedy,et al.  Cortical High-Density Counterstream Architectures , 2013, Science.

[13]  Gabor T. Marth,et al.  Integrative Annotation of Variants from 1092 Humans: Application to Cancer Genomics , 2013, Science.

[14]  Andrew M. Gross,et al.  Network-based stratification of tumor mutations , 2013, Nature Methods.

[15]  Leon Glass,et al.  Introduction to focus issue: quantitative approaches to genetic networks. , 2013, Chaos.

[16]  Sergei Maslov,et al.  Universal distribution of component frequencies in biological and technological systems , 2013, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[17]  Mark Gerstein,et al.  Interpretation of Genomic Variants Using a Unified Biological Network Approach , 2013, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[18]  Monya Baker,et al.  Big biology: The ’omes puzzle , 2013, Nature.

[19]  Wendell A Lim,et al.  Design principles of regulatory networks: searching for the molecular algorithms of the cell. , 2013, Molecular cell.

[20]  R. Carlson,et al.  mTOR inhibitors in the treatment of breast cancer. , 2013, Oncology.

[21]  Gary D Bader,et al.  A travel guide to Cytoscape plugins , 2012, Nature Methods.

[22]  John W. Harwell,et al.  Cortical parcellations of the macaque monkey analyzed on surface-based atlases. , 2012, Cerebral cortex.

[23]  Shane J. Neph,et al.  Circuitry and Dynamics of Human Transcription Factor Regulatory Networks , 2012, Cell.

[24]  David Z. Chen,et al.  Architecture of the human regulatory network derived from ENCODE data , 2012, Nature.

[25]  Michael Schroeder,et al.  Google Goes Cancer: Improving Outcome Prediction for Cancer Patients by Network-Based Ranking of Marker Genes , 2012, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[26]  Simon A. Levin,et al.  Evolution of a modular software network , 2011, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[27]  Wei Niu,et al.  Construction and Analysis of an Integrated Regulatory Network Derived from High-Throughput Sequencing Data , 2011, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[28]  Lada A. Adamic,et al.  Memes Online: Extracted, Subtracted, Injected, and Recollected , 2011, ICWSM.

[29]  Heather F. Windram,et al.  Phylomemetics—Evolutionary Analysis beyond the Gene , 2011, PLoS biology.

[30]  James H Fowler,et al.  Correlated genotypes in friendship networks , 2011, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[31]  Mark Gerstein,et al.  Measuring the Evolutionary Rewiring of Biological Networks , 2011, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[32]  Nitin Bhardwaj,et al.  Rewiring of Transcriptional Regulatory Networks: Hierarchy, Rather Than Connectivity, Better Reflects the Importance of Regulators , 2010, Science Signaling.

[33]  D. Modha,et al.  Network architecture of the long-distance pathways in the macaque brain , 2010, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[34]  Mark Gerstein,et al.  Comparing genomes to computer operating systems in terms of the topology and evolution of their regulatory control networks , 2010, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[35]  Arthur D Lander,et al.  The edges of understanding , 2010, BMC Biology.

[36]  M. Gerstein,et al.  Analysis of diverse regulatory networks in a hierarchical context shows consistent tendencies for collaboration in the middle levels , 2010, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[37]  Jukka-Pekka Onnela,et al.  Community Structure in Time-Dependent, Multiscale, and Multiplex Networks , 2009, Science.

[38]  A. Barabasi,et al.  Network medicine : a network-based approach to human disease , 2010 .

[39]  Gipsi Lima-Mendez,et al.  The powerful law of the power law and other myths in network biology. , 2009, Molecular bioSystems.

[40]  Hiroaki Kitano,et al.  Structure of Protein Interaction Networks and Their Implications on Drug Design , 2009, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[41]  Stefano Allesina,et al.  Googling Food Webs: Can an Eigenvector Measure Species' Importance for Coextinctions? , 2009, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[42]  Kesheng Liu,et al.  Information Flow Analysis of Interactome Networks , 2009, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[43]  Albert-László Barabási,et al.  A Dynamic Network Approach for the Study of Human Phenotypes , 2009, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[44]  E. Davidson,et al.  The evolution of hierarchical gene regulatory networks , 2009, Nature Reviews Genetics.

[45]  Mark E. J. Newman,et al.  Power-Law Distributions in Empirical Data , 2007, SIAM Rev..

[46]  Sergei Maslov,et al.  Detection of the dominant direction of information flow and feedback links in densely interconnected regulatory networks , 2008, BMC Bioinformatics.

[47]  Bonnie Berger,et al.  Global alignment of multiple protein interaction networks with application to functional orthology detection , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[48]  Jun Dong,et al.  Geometric Interpretation of Gene Coexpression Network Analysis , 2008, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[49]  Kirill Evlampiev,et al.  Conservation and topology of protein interaction networks under duplication-divergence evolution , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[50]  M. Newman,et al.  Hierarchical structure and the prediction of missing links in networks , 2008, Nature.

[51]  A. Barabasi,et al.  Network medicine--from obesity to the "diseasome". , 2007, The New England journal of medicine.

[52]  A. Barabasi,et al.  The human disease network , 2007, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[53]  Mark Gerstein,et al.  The Importance of Bottlenecks in Protein Networks: Correlation with Gene Essentiality and Expression Dynamics , 2007, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[54]  M. Cosentino Lagomarsino,et al.  Hierarchy and feedback in the evolution of the Escherichia coli transcription network , 2007, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[55]  Philip M. Kim,et al.  Relating Three-Dimensional Structures to Protein Networks Provides Evolutionary Insights , 2006, Science.

[56]  M. Gerstein,et al.  Genomic analysis of the hierarchical structure of regulatory networks , 2006, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[57]  R. Dawkins The selfish gene, 30th anniversary ed. , 2006 .

[58]  J. Stark,et al.  Network motifs: structure does not determine function , 2006, BMC Genomics.

[59]  Evelyn Fox Keller,et al.  Revisiting "scale-free" networks. , 2005, BioEssays : news and reviews in molecular, cellular and developmental biology.

[60]  U. Alon,et al.  Spontaneous evolution of modularity and network motifs. , 2005, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[61]  M. Keeling,et al.  Networks and epidemic models , 2005, Journal of The Royal Society Interface.

[62]  J. Doyle,et al.  Some protein interaction data do not exhibit power law statistics , 2005, FEBS letters.

[63]  Marc W Kirschner,et al.  The Meaning of Systems Biology , 2005, Cell.

[64]  Matthew W. Hahn,et al.  Comparative genomics of centrality and essentiality in three eukaryotic protein-interaction networks. , 2005, Molecular biology and evolution.

[65]  A. Emili,et al.  Interaction network containing conserved and essential protein complexes in Escherichia coli , 2005, Nature.

[66]  M. Newman Power laws, Pareto distributions and Zipf's law , 2005 .

[67]  A. Barabasi,et al.  Network biology: understanding the cell's functional organization , 2004, Nature Reviews Genetics.

[68]  R. Solé,et al.  Information Theory of Complex Networks: On Evolution and Architectural Constraints , 2004 .

[69]  Christos Faloutsos,et al.  Epidemic spreading in real networks: an eigenvalue viewpoint , 2003, 22nd International Symposium on Reliable Distributed Systems, 2003. Proceedings..

[70]  Joshua M. Stuart,et al.  A Gene-Coexpression Network for Global Discovery of Conserved Genetic Modules , 2003, Science.

[71]  U. Alon Biological Networks: The Tinkerer as an Engineer , 2003, Science.

[72]  Dennis P Wall,et al.  A simple dependence between protein evolution rate and the number of protein-protein interactions , 2003, BMC Evolutionary Biology.

[73]  R. Solé,et al.  Evolving protein interaction networks through gene duplication. , 2003, Journal of theoretical biology.

[74]  Albert-László Barabási,et al.  Linked - how everything is connected to everything else and what it means for business, science, and everyday life , 2003 .

[75]  S. Shen-Orr,et al.  Network motifs: simple building blocks of complex networks. , 2002, Science.

[76]  A. E. Hirsh,et al.  Evolutionary Rate in the Protein Interaction Network , 2002, Science.

[77]  Larry Lok,et al.  Software for Signaling Networks, Electronic and Cellular , 2002, Science's STKE.

[78]  M E J Newman,et al.  Community structure in social and biological networks , 2001, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[79]  A. Vespignani,et al.  Modeling of Protein Interaction Networks , 2001, Complexus.

[80]  Matthew Richardson,et al.  Mining the network value of customers , 2001, KDD '01.

[81]  M. Newman,et al.  Scientific collaboration networks. II. Shortest paths, weighted networks, and centrality. , 2001, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[82]  A. Barabasi,et al.  Lethality and centrality in protein networks , 2001, Nature.

[83]  A. Barabasi,et al.  Error and attack tolerance of complex networks , 2000, Nature.

[84]  L. Amaral,et al.  Classes of small-world networks. , 2000, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

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

[86]  H. Stanley,et al.  Scaling, Universality, and Renormalization: Three Pillars of Modern Critical Phenomena , 1999 .

[87]  David Heckerman,et al.  Empirical Analysis of Predictive Algorithms for Collaborative Filtering , 1998, UAI.

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

[89]  S. Floyd,et al.  Middle management involvement in strategy and its association with strategic type: A research note , 1992 .

[90]  R. Lewontin ‘The Selfish Gene’ , 1977, Nature.

[91]  K. Wilson The renormalization group: Critical phenomena and the Kondo problem , 1975 .

[92]  M. DePamphilis,et al.  HUMAN DISEASE , 1957, The Ulster Medical Journal.

[93]  Leo Katz,et al.  A new status index derived from sociometric analysis , 1953 .