Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 904

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

An empirical framework for binary interactome mapping

Open access
Venkatesan, Kavitha, Rual, Jean-François, Vazquez, Alexei, Stelzl, Ulrich, Lemmens, Irma, Hirozane-Kishikawa, Tomoko, Hao, Tong, Zenkner, Martina, Xin, Xiaofeng, Goh, Kwang-Il, Yildirim, Muhammed A, Simonis, Nicolas, Heinzmann, Kathrin, Gebreab, Fana, Sahalie, Julie M, Cevik, Sebiha, Simon, Christophe, de Smet, Anne-Sophie, Dann, Elizabeth, Smolyar, Alex, Vinayagam, Arunachalam, Yu, Haiyuan, Szeto, David, Borick, Heather, Dricot, Amélie, Klitgord, Niels, Murray, Ryan R, Lin, Chenwei, Lalowski, Maciej, Timm, Jan, Rau, Kirstin, Boone, Charles, Braun, Pascal, Cusick, Michael E, Roth, Frederick P, Hill, David E, Tavernier, Jan, Wanker, Erich E, Barabási, Albert-László, Vidal, Marc·2009·Nature Methods

Abstract

Several attempts have been made to systematically map protein-protein interaction, or 'interactome', networks. However, it remains difficult to assess the quality and coverage of existing data sets. Here we describe a framework that uses an empirically-based approach to rigorously dissect quality parameters of currently available human interactome maps. Our results indicate that high-throughput yeast two-hybrid (HT-Y2H) interactions for human proteins are more precise than literature-curated interactions supported by a single publication, suggesting that HT-Y2H is suitable to map a significant portion of the human interactome. We estimate that the human interactome contains ∼130,000 binary interactions, most of which remain to be mapped. Similar to estimates of DNA sequence data quality and genome size early in the Human Genome Project, estimates of protein interaction data quality and interactome size are crucial to establish the magnitude of the task of comprehensive human interactome mapping and to elucidate a path toward this goal.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/nmeth.1280

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 904

Metadata

Authors
Venkatesan, K., Rual, J.-F., Vazquez, A., Stelzl, U., Lemmens, I., Hirozane-Kishikawa, T., Hao, T., Zenkner, M., Xin, X., Goh, K.-I., Yildirim, M. A., Simonis, N., Heinzmann, K., Gebreab, F., Sahalie, J. M., Cevik, S., Simon, C., de Smet, A.-S., Dann, E., Smolyar, A., Vinayagam, A., Yu, H., Szeto, D., Borick, H., Dricot, A., Klitgord, N., Murray, R. R., Lin, C., Lalowski, M., Timm, J., Rau, K., Boone, C., Braun, P., Cusick, M. E., Roth, F. P., Hill, D. E., Tavernier, J., Wanker, E. E., Barabási, A.-L., & Vidal, M.
Venue
Nature Methods
Published
2008-12-07
Volume
6
Issue
1
Pages
83-90
ISSN
  • 1548-7091 (ISSN-L)
  • 1548-7105
OpenAlex
W2067305633
Cited by
904
References
1
FWCI
16.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.