Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Tiago Rito

dblp:11/8712 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
2ranked-venue papers
1as first author
0since 2021 · last 2014
0009-0005-2497-9457ORCID · corroborated

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Applied, interdisciplinary, general and emerging computing · 2 · 1 first-author

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Interdisciplinary, comprehensive, and emerging computing
2 papers
Bioinformatics and computational biology · 100%

Topics — the 4 heaviest of 5, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Bioinformatics and computational biology › network bioinformatics › biological network analysis
network comparison
0.322014
Alignment-free protein interaction network comparison · Bioinform. 2014
How threshold behaviour affects the use of subgraphs for network comparison · Bioinform. 2010
Bioinformatics and computational biology › protein analysis › protein-protein interaction
protein-protein interaction network analysis
0.322014
Alignment-free protein interaction network comparison · Bioinform. 2014
How threshold behaviour affects the use of subgraphs for network comparison · Bioinform. 2010
Bioinformatics and computational biology
phylogenetics
0.212014
Alignment-free protein interaction network comparison · Bioinform. 2014
Bioinformatics and computational biology › phylogenetics › phylogenetic network
phylogenetic network inference
0.212014
Alignment-free protein interaction network comparison · Bioinform. 2014

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

graphlet analysis · 0.2distance measure · 0.2nonparametric test · 0.1graphlet degree distribution agreement · 0.1
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2014 Alignment-free protein interaction network comparison
abstract
MOTIVATION: Biological network comparison software largely relies on the concept of alignment where close matches between the nodes of two or more networks are sought. These node matches are based on sequence similarity and/or interaction patterns. However, because of the incomplete and error-prone datasets currently available, such methods have had limited success. Moreover, the results of network alignment are in general not amenable for distance-based evolutionary analysis of sets of networks. In this article, we describe Netdis, a topology-based distance measure between networks, which offers the possibility of network phylogeny reconstruction. RESULTS: We first demonstrate that Netdis is able to correctly separate different random graph model types independent of network size and density. The biological applicability of the method is then shown by its ability to build the correct phylogenetic tree of species based solely on the topology of current protein interaction networks. Our results provide new evidence that the topology of protein interaction networks contains information about evolutionary processes, despite the lack of conservation of individual interactions. As Netdis is applicable to all networks because of its speed and simplicity, we apply it to a large collection of biological and non-biological networks where it clusters diverse networks by type. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: The source code of the program is freely available at http://www.stats.ox.ac.uk/research/proteins/resources. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.
Tiago Rito, Gesine Reinert, Fengzhu Sun, Charlotte M. Deane
Bioinform.2
2010 How threshold behaviour affects the use of subgraphs for network comparison
abstract
MOTIVATION: A wealth of protein-protein interaction (PPI) data has recently become available. These data are organized as PPI networks and an efficient and biologically meaningful method to compare such PPI networks is needed. As a first step, we would like to compare observed networks to established network models, under the aspect of small subgraph counts, as these are conjectured to relate to functional modules in the PPI network. We employ the software tool GraphCrunch with the Graphlet Degree Distribution Agreement (GDDA) score to examine the use of such counts for network comparison. RESULTS: Our results show that the GDDA score has a pronounced dependency on the number of edges and vertices of the networks being considered. This should be taken into account when testing the fit of models. We provide a method for assessing the statistical significance of the fit between random graph models and biological networks based on non-parametric tests. Using this method we examine the fit of Erdös-Rényi (ER), ER with fixed degree distribution and geometric (3D) models to PPI networks. Under these rigorous tests none of these models fit to the PPI networks. The GDDA score is not stable in the region of graph density relevant to current PPI networks. We hypothesize that this score instability is due to the networks under consideration having a graph density in the threshold region for the appearance of small subgraphs. This is true for both geometric (3D) and ER random graph models. Such threshold behaviour may be linked to the robustness and efficiency properties of the PPI networks.
Tiago Rito, Charlotte M. Deane, Gesine Reinert
Bioinform.1