Partitioning Biological Networks into Highly Connected Clusters with Maximum Edge Coverage

  • Falk Hüffner
  • Christian Komusiewicz
  • Adrian Liebtrau
  • Rolf Niedermeier
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7875)

Abstract

We introduce the combinatorial optimization problem Highly Connected Deletion, which asks for removing as few edges as possible from a graph such that the resulting graph consists of highly connected components. We show that Highly Connected Deletion is NP-hard and provide a fixed-parameter algorithm and a kernelization. We propose exact and heuristic solution strategies, based on polynomial-time data reduction rules and integer linear programming with column generation. The data reduction typically identifies 85 % of the edges that need to be deleted for an optimal solution; the column generation method can then optimally solve protein interaction networks with up to 5 000 vertices and 12 000 edges.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Aloise, D., Cafieri, S., Caporossi, G., Hansen, P., Perron, S., Liberti, L.: Column generation algorithms for exact modularity maximization in networks. Physical Review E 82, 046112 (2010)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Berardini, T.Z., Mundodi, S., Reiser, R., Huala, E., Garcia-Hernandez, M.: et al. Functional annotation of the Arabidopsis genome using controlled vocabularies. Plant Physiology 135(2), 1–11 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Boyle, E.I., Weng, S., Gollub, J., Jin, H., Botstein, D., Cherry, J.M., Sherlock, G.: GO:TermFinder–open source software for accessing gene ontology information and finding significantly enriched gene ontology terms associated with a list of genes. Bioinformatics 20(18), 3710–3715 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chang, W.-C., Vakati, S., Krause, R., Eulenstein, O.: Exploring biological interaction networks with tailored weighted quasi-bicliques. BMC Bioinformatics 13(S-10), S16 (2012)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chartrand, G.: A graph-theoretic approach to a communications problem. SIAM Journal on Applied Mathematics 14(4), 778–781 (1966)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chekuri, C., Goldberg, A.V., Karger, D.R., Levine, M.S., Stein, C.: Experimental study of minimum cut algorithms. In: Proc. 8th SODA, pp. 324–333 (1997)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    van Dongen, S.: Graph Clustering by Flow Simulation. PhD thesis, University of Utrecht (2000)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hartuv, E., Shamir, R.: A clustering algorithm based on graph connectivity. Information Processing Letters 76(4-6), 175–181 (2000)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hartuv, E., Schmitt, A.O., Lange, J., Meier-Ewert, S., Lehrach, H., Shamir, R.: An algorithm for clustering cDNA fingerprints. Genomics 66(3), 249–256 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hayes, W., Sun, K., Pržulj, N.: Graphlet-based measures are suitable for biological network comparison. Bioinformatics (to appear, 2013)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jiang, D., Pei, J.: Mining frequent cross-graph quasi-cliques. ACM Transactions on Knowledge Discovery from Data 2(4), 16:1–16:42 (2009)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Koyutürk, M., Szpankowski, W., Grama, A.: Assessing significance of connectivity and conservation in protein interaction networks. Journal of Computational Biology 14(6), 747–764 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Liu, H., Zhang, P., Zhu, D.: On editing graphs into 2-club clusters. In: Snoeyink, J., Lu, P., Su, K., Wang, L. (eds.) AAIM 2012 and FAW 2012. LNCS, vol. 7285, pp. 235–246. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Niedermeier, R.: Invitation to Fixed-Parameter Algorithms. OUP (2006)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Parker, B.J., Moltke, I., Roth, A., Washietl, S., Wen, J., Kellis, M., Breaker, R., Pedersen, J.S.: New families of human regulatory RNA structures identified by comparative analysis of vertebrate genomes. Genome Research 21(11), 1929–1943 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ronhovde, P., Nussinov, Z.: Local resolution-limit-free Potts model for community detection. Physical Review E 81(4), 046114 (2010)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Shamir, R., Sharan, R., Tsur, D.: Cluster graph modification problems. Discrete Applied Mathematics 144(1-2), 173–182 (2004)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Stark, C., Breitkreutz, B.-J., Chatr-aryamontri, A., Boucher, L., Oughtred, R., et al.: The BioGRID interaction database: 2011 update. Nucleic Acids Research 39, 698–704 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    van Rooij, J.M.M., van Kooten Niekerk, M.E., Bodlaender, H.L.: Partition into triangles on bounded degree graphs. Theory of Computing Systems (to appear, 2013)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wang, J.Z., Du, Z., Payattakool, R., Yu, P.S., Chen, C.-F.: A new method to measure the semantic similarity of GO terms. Bioinformatics 23(10), 1274–1281 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Falk Hüffner
    • 1
  • Christian Komusiewicz
    • 1
  • Adrian Liebtrau
    • 2
  • Rolf Niedermeier
    • 1
  1. 1.Institut für Softwaretechnik und Theoretische InformatikTU BerlinGermany
  2. 2.Institut für InformatikFriedrich-Schiller-Universität JenaGermany

Personalised recommendations