TABLE 1
FROM:
Survival of the sparsest: robust gene networks are parsimonious
Robert D Leclerc
doi:10.1038/msb.2008.52
BACK TO ARTICLETable 1: Biological networks are sparsely connected
| Organism | Interactions | Genes | c | K | Secondary source | Primary source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
N denotes operons, not genes. | ||||||
This result was derived (statistically) by partial correlation analysis on microarrays and we suspect that this method is not precise. A pilot study with just 2000 genes found a network with N=820 and n=828, which gives c=0.00123 and K | ||||||
The number of network interactions for a subset of an organism's genes, which were reported in various studies and databases, is shown. Interactions: the number of interactions n reported for the N genes; genes: the number of genes N that had reported interactions; column c: the connectivity density (c=n/N2); column K: the average number of transcriptional regulators per gene (K=cN); secondary source: the source that reported the values; primary source: where the secondary source derived the values from. References for secondary and primary sources are shown at the bottom of the table. | ||||||
Sources: (i) Serov VN, Spirov AV, Samsonova MG (1998). Graphical interface to the genetic network database GeNet. Bioinfomatics14: 546–547; (ii) GeNet (http://www.bionet.nsc.ru/bgrs/thesis/17/index.html); (iii) Rosenfeld N and Alon U (2003). Response delays and the structure of transcription networks. J Mol Biol329: 645–654; (iv) Davidson EH et al (2002). A genomic regulatory network for development. Science295: 1669–1678; (v) Costanzo MC et al (2001). YPDTM, PombePDTM and WormPDTM: model organism volumes of the BioKnowledgeTM Library, an integrated resource for protein information. Nucleic Acids Res29: 75–79; (vi) Lee TI et al (2002). Transcriptional regulatory networks in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Science298: 799–804; (vii) Kauffman S, Peterson C, Samuelsson B, Troein C (2003). Random Boolean network models and the yeast transcriptional network. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA100: 14796–14799; (viii) http://web.wi.mit.edu/young/regulatory_network; (ix) Shen-Orr SS, Milo R, Mangan S, Alon U (2002). Network motifs in the transcriptional regulation network of Escherichia coli. Nature Genetics31: 64–68; (x) Ma S, Gong Q, Bohnert HJ (2007). An Arabidopsis gene network based on the graphical Gaussian model. Genome Res17: 1614–1625. | ||||||
| Drosophila melanogaster | 29 | 14 | 0.148 | 2.07 | i | ii |
| D. melanogaster | 45 | 25 | 0.072 | 1.8 | iii | ii |
| Sea urchin | 82 | 44 | 0.0065 | 1.86 | iii | iv |
| Saccharomyces cerevisiae | 1052 | 678 | 0.0023 | 1.55 | iii | v |
| S. cerevisiae | 3969 | 2341 | 0.0007 | 1.7 | iii | vi |
| S. cerevisiae | 106 | 56 | 0.0338 | 1.9 | vii | viii |
| Escherichia colia | 578 | 423 | 0.0032 | 1.37 | iii | ix |
| Arabidopsis thalianab | 18 625 | 6760 | 0.0004 | 2.75 | — | x |

1.0. However, this is likely much too sparse. Moreover, although this sample should be representative for larger N, and thus K should be the same for large N, their partial correlation analysis shows a K=2.75. This method seems to give a large number of false negatives for smaller N, and according to our analysis, a large number of false positives for the larger networks. Nevertheless, a value for K where 1
K