BACKGROUND: Protein interaction databases often provide confidence scores for each recorded interaction based on the available experimental evidence. Protein interaction networks (PINs) are then built by thresholding on these scores, so that only interactions of sufficiently high quality are included. These networks are used to identify biologically relevant motifs or nodes using metrics such as degree or betweenness centrality. This type of analysis can be sensitive to the choice of threshold. If a node metric is to be useful for extracting biological signal, it should induce similar node rankings across PINs obtained at different reasonable confidence score thresholds. RESULTS: We propose three measures-rank continuity, identifiability, and instability-to evaluate how robust a node metric is to changes in the score threshold. We apply our measures to twenty-five metrics and identify four as the most robust: the number of edges in the step-1 ego network, as well as the leave-one-out differences in average redundancy, average number of edges in the step-1 ego network, and natural connectivity. Our measures show good agreement across PINs from different species and data sources. Analysis of synthetically generated scored networks shows that robustness results are context-specific, and depend both on network topology and on how scores are placed across network edges. CONCLUSION: Due to the uncertainty associated with protein interaction detection, and therefore network structure, for PIN analysis to be reproducible, it should yield similar results across different confidence score thresholds. We demonstrate that while certain node metrics are robust with respect to threshold choice, this is not always the case. Promisingly, our results suggest that there are some metrics that are robust across networks constructed from different databases, and different scoring procedures.

Motivation: Our work is motivated by an interest in constructing a protein-protein interaction network that captures key features associated with Parkinson's disease. While there is an abundance of subnetwork construction methods available, it is often far from obvious which subnetwork is the most suitable starting point for further investigation. Results: We provide a method to assess whether a subnetwork constructed from a seed list (a list of nodes known to be important in the area of interest) differs significantly from a randomly generated subnetwork. The proposed method uses a Monte Carlo approach. As different seed lists can give rise to the same subnetwork, we control for redundancy by constructing a minimal seed list as the starting point for the significance test. The null model is based on random seed lists of the same length as a minimum seed list that generates the subnetwork; in this random seed list the nodes have (approximately) the same degree distribution as the nodes in the minimum seed list. We use this null model to select subnetworks which deviate significantly from random on an appropriate set of statistics and might capture useful information for a real world protein-protein interaction network. Availability and implementation: The software used in this paper are available for download at https://sites.google.com/site/elliottande/. The software is written in Python and uses the NetworkX library. Contact: [email protected] or [email protected]. Supplementary information: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.