Table 5.
|
Modules |
BPMs |
||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Dataset | Accepted | Enriched | Accepted | Enriched for same function | Enriched for same or related function | Enriched for different functions | One mod enriched | No mods enriched |
Collins et al. | 112 | 103 | 58 | 39 (67%) | 43 (74%) | 6 (10%) | 9 (16%) | 0 (0%) |
Fiedler et al. | 10 | 8 | 5 | 0 (0%) | 4 (80%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (20%) |
Boone (Full) | 285 | 104 | 149 | 8 (5%) | 17 (11%) | 9 (6%) | 56 (38%) | 67 (45%) |
S. pombe | 31 | 18 | 16 | 1 (6%) | 1 (6%) | 4 (25%) | 9 (56%) | 2 (13%) |
Notice that the BPM network motif is very rare among the Fiedler et al. cell signaling genes, as compared to the others, implying perhaps that this network is organized at a different level of complexity or with different mechanisms of fault-tolerance. On the other hand, the fact that fewer modules and BPMs are enriched in the full Boone dataset across nearly all S. cerevisiae genes and the S. pombe network is more likely caused by the fact that our knowledge and therefore annotation of basic S. cervisiae cell cycle genes far exceeds our knowledge of the other networks, rather than intrinsic differences in network organization.