Statistical mechanics of ontology based annotations

We present a statistical mechanical theory of the process of annotating an object with terms selected from an ontology. The term selection process is formulated as an ideal lattice gas model, but in a highly structured inhomogeneous field. The model enables us to explain patterns recently observed in real-world annotation data sets, in terms of the underlying graph structure of the ontology. By relating the external field strengths to the information content of each node in the ontology graph, the statistical mechanical model also allows us to propose a number of practical metrics for assessing the quality of both the ontology, and the annotations that arise from its use. Using the statistical mechanical formalism we also study an ensemble of ontologies of differing size and complexity; an analysis not readily performed using real data alone. Focusing on regular tree ontology graphs we uncover a rich set of scaling laws describing the growth in the optimal ontology size as the number of objects being annotated increases. In doing so we provide a further possible measure for assessment of ontologies.Comment: 27 pages, 5 figure

Revisiting Date and Party Hubs: Novel Approaches to Role Assignment in Protein Interaction Networks

The idea of 'date' and 'party' hubs has been influential in the study of protein-protein interaction networks. Date hubs display low co-expression with their partners, whilst party hubs have high co-expression. It was proposed that party hubs are local coordinators whereas date hubs are global connectors. Here we show that the reported importance of date hubs to network connectivity can in fact be attributed to a tiny subset of them. Crucially, these few, extremely central, hubs do not display particularly low expression correlation, undermining the idea of a link between this quantity and hub function. The date/party distinction was originally motivated by an approximately bimodal distribution of hub co-expression; we show that this feature is not always robust to methodological changes. Additionally, topological properties of hubs do not in general correlate with co-expression. Thus, we suggest that a date/party dichotomy is not meaningful and it might be more useful to conceive of roles for protein-protein interactions rather than individual proteins. We find significant correlations between interaction centrality and the functional similarity of the interacting proteins.Comment: 27 pages, 5 main figures, 4 supplementary figure

Ribosome traffic on mRNAs maps to gene ontology : genome-wide quantification of translation initiation rates and polysome size regulation

Peer reviewedPublisher PD

The architecture of the protein domain universe

Understanding the design of the universe of protein structures may provide insights into protein evolution. We study the architecture of the protein domain universe, which has been found to poses peculiar scale-free properties (Dokholyan et al., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 99: 14132-14136 (2002)). We examine the origin of these scale-free properties of the graph of protein domain structures (PDUG) and determine that that the PDUG is not modular, i.e. it does not consist of modules with uniform properties. Instead, we find the PDUG to be self-similar at all scales. We further characterize the PDUG architecture by studying the properties of the hub nodes that are responsible for the scale-free connectivity of the PDUG. We introduce a measure of the betweenness centrality of protein domains in the PDUG and find a power-law distribution of the betweenness centrality values. The scale-free distribution of hubs in the protein universe suggests that a set of specific statistical mechanics models, such as the self-organized criticality model, can potentially identify the principal driving forces of molecular evolution. We also find a gatekeeper protein domain, removal of which partitions the largest cluster into two large sub-clusters. We suggest that the loss of such gatekeeper protein domains in the course of evolution is responsible for the creation of new fold families.Comment: 14 pages, 3 figure

Comparison and validation of community structures in complex networks

The issue of partitioning a network into communities has attracted a great deal of attention recently. Most authors seem to equate this issue with the one of finding the maximum value of the modularity, as defined by Newman. Since the problem formulated this way is NP-hard, most effort has gone into the construction of search algorithms, and less to the question of other measures of community structures, similarities between various partitionings and the validation with respect to external information. Here we concentrate on a class of computer generated networks and on three well-studied real networks which constitute a bench-mark for network studies; the karate club, the US college football teams and a gene network of yeast. We utilize some standard ways of clustering data (originally not designed for finding community structures in networks) and show that these classical methods sometimes outperform the newer ones. We discuss various measures of the strength of the modular structure, and show by examples features and drawbacks. Further, we compare different partitions by applying some graph-theoretic concepts of distance, which indicate that one of the quality measures of the degree of modularity corresponds quite well with the distance from the true partition. Finally, we introduce a way to validate the partitionings with respect to external data when the nodes are classified but the network structure is unknown. This is here possible since we know everything of the computer generated networks, as well as the historical answer to how the karate club and the football teams are partitioned in reality. The partitioning of the gene network is validated by use of the Gene Ontology database, where we show that a community in general corresponds to a biological process.Comment: To appear in Physica A; 25 page

Making AI Meaningful Again

Artificial intelligence (AI) research enjoyed an initial period of enthusiasm in the 1970s and 80s. But this enthusiasm was tempered by a long interlude of frustration when genuinely useful AI applications failed to be forthcoming. Today, we are experiencing once again a period of enthusiasm, fired above all by the successes of the technology of deep neural networks or deep machine learning. In this paper we draw attention to what we take to be serious problems underlying current views of artificial intelligence encouraged by these successes, especially in the domain of language processing. We then show an alternative approach to language-centric AI, in which we identify a role for philosophy