Table 4

Network reconstruction from individual and combined topological node measures.

Community1

Community2


Measurements

<a onClick="popup('http://www.biomedcentral.com/1752-0509/1/16/mathml/M1','MathML',630,470);return false;" target="_blank" href="http://www.biomedcentral.com/1752-0509/1/16/mathml/M1">View MathML</a>

<a onClick="popup('http://www.biomedcentral.com/1752-0509/1/16/mathml/M1','MathML',630,470);return false;" target="_blank" href="http://www.biomedcentral.com/1752-0509/1/16/mathml/M1">View MathML</a>

1

0.797

0.647

2

0.563

0.577

3

0.539

0.611

4

    0.810

0.664

1, 2

0.637

0.706

1, 3

0.770

0.670

1, 4

0.802

0.663

2, 3

0.532

0.638

2, 4

0.704

    0.750

3, 4

0.782

0.678

1, 2, 3

0.688

0.694

1, 2, 4

0.782

0.720

1, 3, 4

0.800

0.678

2, 3, 4

0.689

0.703


Geometrical averages of the connectivity estimation obtained for the two communities while considering the 14 combinations of measurements listed in the first column. The best combinations for communities 1 and 2 were respectively the matching index (4) and the pair of measurements involving the clustering coefficient (2) and matching index (4). The configurations leading to the best matches have been emphasized.

Costa et al. BMC Systems Biology 2007 1:16   doi:10.1186/1752-0509-1-16

Open Data