Cited by 55Protein Structure and DynamicsAdvanced Physical and Chemical Molecular InteractionsGene Regulatory Network Analysis

Quantitative comparison of alternative methods for coarse-graining biological networks

Open access
Bowman, Gregory R., Meng, Luming, Huang, Xuhui·2013·The Journal of Chemical Physics

Abstract

Markov models and master equations are a powerful means of modeling dynamic processes like protein conformational changes. However, these models are often difficult to understand because of the enormous number of components and connections between them. Therefore, a variety of methods have been developed to facilitate understanding by coarse-graining these complex models. Here, we employ Bayesian model comparison to determine which of these coarse-graining methods provides the models that are most faithful to the original set of states. We find that the Bayesian agglomerative clustering engine and the hierarchical Nyström expansion graph (HNEG) typically provide the best performance. Surprisingly, the original Perron cluster cluster analysis (PCCA) method often provides the next best results, outperforming the newer PCCA+ method and the most probable paths algorithm. We also show that the differences between the models are qualitatively significant, rather than being minor shifts in the boundaries between states. The performance of the methods correlates well with the entropy of the resulting coarse-grainings, suggesting that finding states with more similar populations (i.e., avoiding low population states that may just be noise) gives better results.

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 · 10.1063/1.4812768

Cites

37 of 37 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The performance of several coarse-graining methods has been compared, although the result depends on the choice of benchmark.

    “The performance of several such methods have been compared [36], although we note that the result of such a comparison depends on the choice of benchmark.”

    From Markov state models of biomolecular conformational dynamics (2014) · cites this paper as [36]

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Huang X., Yao Y., Bowman G. R., Sun J., Guibas L. J., Carlsson G., and Pande V. S., Pac. Symp. Biocomput. 15, 228 (2010). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Roblitz S., Habilitation thesis, Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, Freie Universitat Berlin, 2008.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bowman, G. R., Meng, L., & Huang, X.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Berkeley (US)
  • Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (HK)
Venue
The Journal of Chemical Physics
Published
2013-07-08
Volume
139
Issue
12
Pages
121905-121905
ISSN
  • 0021-9606 (ISSN-L)
  • 1089-7690
OpenAlex
W2015656580
Cited by
55
References
37
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 1
FWCI
2.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Journal of Chemical Physics (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Rare & Special e-Zone (The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (1048789)
  • Burroughs Wellcome Fund
  • Adolph C. and Mary Sprague Miller Institute for Basic Research in Science, University of California Berkeley
  • National Natural Science Foundation of China (973 Program, 21273188)
  • Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
  • National Institutes of Health (NIH-R01, GM050945)
  • National Key Research and Development Program of China (2013CB834703)
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (R01GM050945)
  • Division of Chemistry
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Protein Structure and Dynamics
  • Physical Sciences › Chemistry › Physical and Theoretical Chemistry › Advanced Physical and Chemical Molecular Interactions
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gene Regulatory Network Analysis
Keywords
coarse-graining, Markov model, master equation, Bayesian model selection, agglomerative clustering, PCCA, most probable path, protein conformational dynamics, state aggregation, entropy (information theory)
MeSH terms
Alanine, Algorithms, beta-Lactamases, Dipeptides, Kinetics, Markov Chains, Models, Molecular, Peptide Fragments, Protein Conformation, Cluster Analysis, Neurofilament Proteins, Entropy, Computational Biology

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