Table 1 |
||||||
|
Conservation statistics between S. cerevisiae and S. pombe |
||||||
|
Baseline |
Previous explanations |
Module based explanations |
||||
|
|
||||||
|
Hubs |
Complexes |
Molecular function |
WMI |
WMI -no hubs |
WMI ext. |
|
|
|
||||||
|
18.11% |
26% |
26%/35% |
26% |
46.54% |
42.87% |
49.66% |
|
|
||||||
|
Conservation rates for S. pombe with respect to S. cerevisiae are based on the integrated networks for the following categories: Baseline: the entire networks; Hubs: highest rate reported for any bin based on node degree; Complexes: complexes as defined by the Gavin and Krogran studies [13,14]; Molecular function: highest rate reported for interactions with any GO molecular function; WMI: Within-Module Interactions; WMI - no hubs: WMI excluding interactions with hubs; Extended WMI: extended module interactions. See text for further details. |
||||||
|
Zinman et al. BMC Systems Biology 2011 5:134 doi:10.1186/1752-0509-5-134 |
||||||