International Journal on Bioinformatics & Biosciences (IJBB) Vol.3, No.2, June 2013

Application of three graph Laplacian based semisupervised learning methods to protein function
prediction problem
Loc Tran
University of Minnesota
tran0398@umn.edu

Abstract:
Protein function prediction is the important problem in modern biology. In this paper, the un-normalized,
symmetric normalized, and random walk graph Laplacian based semi-supervised learning methods will be
applied to the integrated network combined from multiple networks to predict the functions of all yeast
proteins in these multiple networks. These multiple networks are network created from Pfam domain
structure, co-participation in a protein complex, protein-protein interaction network, genetic interaction
network, and network created from cell cycle gene expression measurements. Multiple networks are
combined with fixed weights instead of using convex optimization to determine the combination weights
due to high time complexity of convex optimization method. This simple combination method will not affect
the accuracy performance measures of the three semi-supervised learning methods. Experiment results
show that the un-normalized and symmetric normalized graph Laplacian based methods perform slightly
better than random walk graph Laplacian based method for integrated network. Moreover, the accuracy
performance measures of these three semi-supervised learning methods for integrated network are much
better than the best accuracy performance measures of these three methods for the individual network.

Keywords:
semi-supervised learning, graph Laplacian, yeast, protein, function

1. Introduction
Protein function prediction is the important problem in modern biology. Identifying the function
of proteins by biological experiments is very expensive and hard. Hence a lot of computational
methods have been proposed to infer the functions of the proteins by using various types of
information such as gene expression data and protein-protein interaction networks [1].
First, in order to predict protein function, the sequence similarity algorithms [2, 3] can be
employed to find the homologies between the already annotated proteins and theun-annotated
protein. Then the annotated proteins with similar sequences can be used to assign the function to
the un-annotated protein. That’s the classical way to predict protein function [4].
Second, to predict protein function, a graph (i.e. kernel) which is the natural model of relationship
between proteinscan also be employed. In this model, the nodes represent proteins. The edges
represent for the possible interactions between nodes. Then, machine learning methods such as
Support Vector Machine [5], Artificial Neural Networks [4], un-normalized graph Laplacian
based semi-supervised learning method [6,14], or neighbor counting method [7] can be applied to
this graph to infer the functions of un-annotated protein. The neighbor counting method labels the
protein with the function that occurs frequently in the protein’s adjacent nodes in the proteinprotein interaction network. Hence neighbor counting method does not utilize the full topology of
the network. However, the Artificial Neural Networks, Support Vector Machine, andunnormalized graph Laplacian based semi-supervised learning method utilize the full topology of
DOI: 10.5121/ijbb.2013.3202

11

International Journal on Bioinformatics & Biosciences (IJBB) Vol.3, No.2, June 2013

the network.Moreover, the Artificial Neural Networks and Support Vector Machine are
supervised learning methods.
While the neighbor counting method, the Artificial Neural Networks, and the un-normalized
graph Laplacian based semi-supervised learningmethod are all based on the assumption that the
labels of two adjacent proteins in graph are likely to be the same, SVM do not rely on this
assumption. Graphs used in neighbor counting method, Artificial Neural Networks, and the unnormalized graph Laplacian based semi-supervised learningmethod are very sparse.However, the
graph (i.e. kernel) used in SVM is fully-connected.
Third, the Artificial Neural Networks method is applied to the single protein-protein interaction
network only. However, the SVM method and un-normalized graph Laplacian based semisupervised learning method try to use weighted combination of multiple networks(i.e. kernels)
such as gene co-expression networkand protein-protein interaction network to improve the
accuracy performance measures. While [5] (SVM method) determines the optimal weighted
combination of networks by solving the semi-definite problem, [6,14] (un-normalized graph
Laplacian based semi-supervised learning method) uses a dual problem and gradient descent to
determine the weighted combination of networks.
In the last decade, the normalized graph Laplacian [8] and random walk graph Laplacian [9]
based semi-supervised learning methods have successfully been applied to some specific
classification tasks such as digit recognition and text classification. However, to the best of my
knowledge, the normalized graph Laplacian and random walk graph Laplacian based semisupervised learning methods have not yet been applied to protein function prediction problem and
hence their overall accuracy performance measure comparisons have not been done. In this paper,
we will apply three un-normalized, symmetric normalized, and random walk graph Laplacian
based semi-supervised learning methods to the integrated network combined with fixed
weights.These five networksused for the combination are available from [6]. The main point of
these three methods is to let every node of the graph iteratively propagates its label information to
its adjacent nodes and the process is repeated until convergence [8]. Moreover, since [6] has
pointed out that the integrated network combined with optimized weights has similar performance
to the integrated network combined with equal weights, i.e. without optimization, we will use the
integrated network combined with equal weights due to high time-complexity of these
optimization methods. This type of combination will be discussed clearly in the next sections.
We will organize the paper as follows: Section 2 will introduce random walk and symmetric
normalized graph Laplacian based semi-supervised learning algorithms in detail.Section 3will
show how to derive the closed form solutions of normalized and un-normalized graph Laplacian
based semi-supervised learning from regularization framework. In section 4, we will apply these
three algorithms to the integrated network of five networks available from [6]. These five
networks are network created from Pfam domain structure, co-participation in a protein complex,
protein-protein interaction network, genetic interaction network, and network created from cell
cycle gene expression measurements. Section 5 will conclude this paper and discuss the future
directions of researches of this protein function prediction problem utilizing hypergraph
Laplacian.
Claim:

12

International Journal on Bioinformatics & Biosciences (IJBB) Vol.3, No.2, June 2013

We do not claim that the accuracy performance measures of these two methods will be better
than the accuracy performance measure of the un-normalized graph Laplacian based semisupervised learning method (i.e. the published method) in this protein function prediction
problem. We just do the comparisons.
To the best of my knowledge, no theoretical framework have been given to prove that which
graph Laplacian method achieves the best accuracy performance measure in the classification
task. In the other words, the accuracy performance measures of these three graph Laplacian based
semi-supervised learning methods depend on the datasets we used. However, in [8], the author
have pointed out that the accuracy performance measure of the symmetric normalized graph
Laplacian based semi-supervised learning method are better than accuracy performance measures
of the random walk and un-normalized graph Laplacian based semi-supervised learning methods
in digit recognition and text categorization problems. Moreover, its accuracy performance
measure is also better than the accuracy performance measure of Support Vector Machine method
(i.e. the known best classifier in literature) in two proposed digit recognition and text
categorization problems. This fact is worth investigated in protein function prediction problem.
Again, we do not claim that our two proposed random walk and symmetric normalized graph
Laplacian based semi-supervised learning methods will perform better than the published method
(i.e. the un-normalized graph Laplacian method)in this protein function prediction problem. At
least, the accuracy performance measures of two new proposed methods are similar to or are not
worse than the accuracy performance measure of the published method (i.e. the un-normalized
graph Laplacian method).

2. Algorithms
Given
networks in the dataset, the weights for individual networks used to combine to
integrated network are .
Given a set of proteins{ , … , ,
,…,
} where = + is the total number of proteins
in the integrated network, define c bethe total number of functional classes and the matrix ∈
∗
be the estimated label matrix for the set of proteins { , … , ,
,…,
}, where the
point is labeled as sign( ) for each functional class j (1 ≤ ≤ ). Please note that { , … , }
is the set of all labeled points and {
,…,
} is the set of all un-labeled points.
Let

∈

∗

the initial label matrix for n proteins in the network be defined as follows

= −1

1

0

+1≤ ≤

1≤ ≤
1≤ ≤

Our objective is to predict the labels of the un-labeled points
,…,
. We can achieve this
objective by letting every node (i.e. proteins) in the network iteratively propagates its label
information to its adjacent nodes and this process is repeated until convergence. These three
algorithms are based on three assumptions:
Let

local consistency: nearby proteins are likely to have the same function
global consistency: proteins on the same structure (cluster or sub-manifolds) are
likely to have the same function
these protein networks contain no self-loops
( )

represents the

individual network in the dataset.
13

International Journal on Bioinformatics & Biosciences (IJBB) Vol.3, No.2, June 2013

Random walk graph Laplacian based semi-supervised learning algorithm
In this section, we slightly change the original random walk graph Laplacian based semisupervised learning algorithm can be obtained from [9]. The outline of the new version of this
algorithm is as follows
1. Form the affinity matrix

( )

( )

2. Construct
( )

( )

=

∑

(for each k such that 1 ≤ ≤
|| − ||
exp −
≠
=
2∗
0
=
( )

( )

where

( )

):

= diag(

( )

,…,

( )

) and

=∑
3. Iterate until convergence
(
)
( )
=
+ (1 − ) , where α is an arbitrary parameter belongs to
[0,1]
4. Let ∗ be the limit of the sequence { ( ) }. For each protein functional class j, label
each protein ( + 1 ≤ ≤ + ) as sign( ∗ )

Next, we look for the closed-form solution of the random walk graph Laplacian based semisupervised learning. In the other words, we need to show that

…
Thus, by induction,

Since

is the stochastic matrix, its eigenvalues are in [-1,1]. Moreover, since 0<α<1,

thus

14

International Journal on Bioinformatics & Biosciences (IJBB) Vol.3, No.2, June 2013

Therefore,

Now, from the above formula, we can compute

∗

directly.

The original random walk graph Laplacian based semi-supervised learning algorithm developed
by Zhu can be derived from the modified algorithm by setting
= 0, where 1 ≤ ≤ and
= 1,where + 1 ≤ ≤ + . In the other words, we can express ( ) in matrix form as
follows
(

)

=

0 …
⋮
0
…
=

( )

0
⋮
0

+( −

0

) , where

(
1
0
0
⋮
⋮
0 … 1
Normalized graph Laplacian based semi-supervised learning algorithm

I is the identity matrix and

)

Next, we will give the brief overview of the original normalized graph Laplacian based semisupervised learning algorithm can be obtained from [8]. The outline of this algorithm is as
follows
1. Form the affinity matrix

( )

( )

2. Construct
( )

( )

=

(for each 1 ≤ ≤ ):
|| − ||
exp −
≠
=
2∗
0
=
( )

∑

( )

( )

where

( )

= diag(

( )

,…,

( )

) and

=∑
3. Iterate until convergence
(
)
( )
=
+ (1 − ) , where α is an arbitrary parameter belongs to
[0,1]
4. Let ∗ be the limit of the sequence { ( ) }. For each protein functional class j, label
each protein ( + 1 ≤ ≤ + ) as sign( ∗ )

Next, we look for the closed-form solution of the normalizedgraph Laplacian based semisupervised learning. In the other words, we need to show that

Suppose

( )

∗

= lim

= , then

→∞

( )

= (1 − )

−

15

International Journal on Bioinformatics & Biosciences (IJBB) Vol.3, No.2, June 2013

…
Thus, by induction,

Since for every integer k such that 1 ≤

≤

( )

is a stochastic matrix, eigenvalues of
( )

( )

( )

( )

( )

( )

( )

( )

is similar to

( )

( )

which

belong to [-1,1]. Moreover, for every k,

( )
( ) ( )
is symmetric, then ∑
is also symmetric. Therefore, by
using Weyl’s inequality in [10] and the references therein, the largest eigenvalue of

∑

( )

,

( )

( )

is at most the sum of every largest eigenvalues of
( )

the smallest eigenvalue of ∑

( )

( )

lim

→∞

Therefore,
∗

= lim

→∞

(

→∞

( )

=0

) =( −

( )

and

=

∑

( )

( )

( )

)

= (1 − )( −

Now, from the above formula, we can compute

3. Regularization Frameworks

( )

is at least the sum of every smallest

( ) ( )
eigenvalues of ( )
. Thus, the eigenvalues of
belong to [-1,1]. Moreover, since 0<α<1, thus

lim

( )

∗

)

directly.

In this section, we will develop the regularization framework for the normalized graph Laplacian
based semi-supervised learning iterative version. First, let’s consider the error function

16

International Journal on Bioinformatics & Biosciences (IJBB) Vol.3, No.2, June 2013

In this error function ( ), and belong to . Please note that c is the total number of protein
( )
( )
functional classes,
=∑
, and is the positive regularization parameter. Hence
=

=

⋮

⋮

Here ( ) stands for the sum of the square loss between the estimated label matrix and the initial
label matrix and the smoothness constraint.
Hence we can rewrite ( ) as follows
( )=

−

(( − ) ( − ))

+

Our objective is to minimize this error function. In the other words, we solve
=0

This will lead to

Let

=

. Hence the solution

∗

of the above equations is

∗

= (1 − )( −

)

( )
( )
Also, please note that
= ∑
is not the symmetric matrix, thus we cannot
develop the regularization framework for the random walk graph Laplacian based semisupervised learning iterative version.

Next, we will develop the regularization framework for the un-normalized graph Laplacian based
semi-supervised learning algorithms. First, let’s consider the error function
( )=

1
2

In this error function ( ),
protein functional classes and

( )

,

−

+

‖

− ‖

and
belong to
. Please note that c is the total number of
is the positive regularization parameter. Hence
=

⋮

=

⋮

Here ( ) stands for the sum of the square loss between the estimated label matrix and the initial
label matrix and the smoothness constraint.

17

International Journal on Bioinformatics & Biosciences (IJBB) Vol.3, No.2, June 2013

Hence we can rewrite ( ) as follows
( )=

1

( )

(( − ) ( − ))

+

Please note that un-normalized Laplacian matrix of the
networkis
objective is to minimize this error function. In the other words, we solve

1
∗

=

( )

−

( )

. Our

=0

This will lead to

Hence the solution

( )

( )

∑

+ ( − )=0

of the above equations is
∗

= (

1

( )

+

( )

=

+

)

+

)

Similarly, we can also obtain the other form of solution ∗ of the normalized graph Laplacian
based semi-supervised learning algorithm as follows (note normalized Laplacian matrix of
networkis

( )

= −

( )

( )

( )

∗

4. Experiments and results

)

= (

1

( )

The Dataset
The three symmetric normalized, random walk, and un-normalized graph Laplacian based semisupervised learning are applied to the dataset obtained from [6]. This dataset is composed of 3588
yeast proteins from Saccharomyces cerevisiae, annotated with 13 highest-level functional classes
from MIPS Comprehensive Yeast Genome Data (Table 1). This dataset contains five networks of
pairwise relationships, which are very sparse.These five networks are network created from Pfam
domain structure ( ( ) ), co-participation in a protein complex ( ( ) ), protein-protein interaction
network ( ( ) ), genetic interaction network ( ( ) ), and network created from cell cycle gene
expression measurements ( ( ) ).
The first network, ( ) , was obtained from the Pfam domain structure of the given genes. At the
time of the curation of the dataset, Pfam contained 4950 domains. For each protein, a binary
vector of this length was created. Each element of this vector represents the presence or absence
( )
of one Pfam domain. The value of
is then the normalization of the dot product between the
domain vectors of proteins i and j.
The fifth network, ( ) , was obtained from gene expression data collected by [12]. In this
network, an edge with weight 1 is created between two proteins if their gene expression profiles
are sufficiently similar.
18

International Journal on Bioinformatics & Biosciences (IJBB) Vol.3, No.2, June 2013

The remaining three networks were created with data from the MIPS Comprehensive Yeast
Genome Database (CYGD). ( ) is composed of binary edges indicating whether the given
proteins are known to co-participate in a protein complex. The binary edges of ( ) indicate
known protein-protein physical interactions. Finally, the binary edges in ( ) indicate known
protein-protein genetic interactions.
The protein functional classes these proteins were assigned to are the 13 functional classes
defined by CYGD at the time of the curation of this dataset. A brief description of these
functional classes is given in the following Table 1.
Table 1: 13 CYGD functional classes
Classes
1

Metabolism

2

Energy

3

Cell cycle and DNA processing

4

Transcription

5

Protein synthesis

6

Protein fate

7

Cellular transportation and transportation mechanism

8

Cell rescue, defense and virulence

9

Interaction with cell environment

10

Cell fate

11

Control of cell o rganization

12

Transport facilitation

13

Others

Results
In this section, we experiment with the above three methods in terms of classification accuracy
performance measure. All experiments were implemented in Matlab 6.5 on virtual machine.
For the comparisons discussed here, the three-fold cross validation is used to compute the
accuracy performance measures for each class and each method. The accuracy performance
measure Q is given as follows
=

+

+
+

+

True Positive (TP), True Negative (TN), False Positive (FP), and False Negative (FN) are defined
in the following table 2

19

International Journal on Bioinformatics & Biosciences (IJBB) Vol.3, No.2, June 2013

Table 2: Definitions of TP, TN, FP, and FN
Predicted Label

Known Label

Positive

Negative

Positive

True Positive (TP)

False Negative (FN)

Negative

False Positive (FP)

True Negative (TN)

In these experiments, parameter is set to 0.85 and = 1. For this dataset, the third table shows
the accuracy performance measures of the three methods applying to integrated network for 13
functional classes
Table 3: Comparisons of symmetric normalized, random walk, and un-normalized graph
Laplacian based methods using integrated network
Functional Classes

Accuracy Performance Measures (%)
Integrated Network
Normalized

Random Walk

Un-normalized

1

76.87

76.98

77.20

2

85.90

85.87

85.81

3

78.48

78.48

77.56

4

78.57

78.54

77.62

5

86.01

85.95

86.12

6

80.43

80.49

80.32

7

82.02

81.97

81.83

8

84.17

84.14

84.17

9

86.85

86.85

86.87

10

80.88

80.85

80.52

11

85.03

85.03

85.92

12

87.49

87.46

87.54

13

88.32

88.32

88.32

From the above table 3, we recognized that the symmetric normalized and un-normalized graph
Laplacian based semi-supervised learning methods slightly perform better than the random walk
graph Laplacian based semi-supervised learning method.
20

International Journal on Bioinformatics & Biosciences (IJBB) Vol.3, No.2, June 2013

Next, we will show the accuracy performance measures of the three methods for each individual
network ( ) in the following tables:
Table 4: Comparisons of symmetric normalized, random walk, and un-normalized graph
Laplacian based methods using network ( )

Functional Classes

Accuracy Performance Measures (%)
Network

( )

Normalized

Random Walk

Un-normalized

1

64.24

63.96

64.30

2

71.01

71.07

71.13

3

63.88

63.66

63.91

4

65.55

65.41

65.47

5

71.35

71.46

71.24

6

66.95

66.69

67.11

7

67.89

67.70

67.84

8

69.29

69.29

69.31

9

71.49

71.40

71.52

10

65.30

65.47

65.50

11

70.09

70.04

70.12

12

72.71

72.66

72.63

13

72.85

72.77

72.85

Table 5: Comparisons of symmetric normalized, random walk, and un-normalized graph
Laplacian based methods using network ( )
Functional Classes

Accuracy Performance Measures (%)
Network

( )

Normalized

Random Walk

Un-normalized

1

24.64

24.64

24.64

2

27.84

27.84

27.79

3

23.16

23.16

23.08
21

International Journal on Bioinformatics & Biosciences (IJBB) Vol.3, No.2, June 2013
4

22.60

22.60

22.52

5

26.37

26.37

26.23

6

24.39

24.39

24.19

7

26.11

26.11

26.37

8

27.65

27.65

27.62

9

28.43

28.43

28.34

10

25.81

25.81

25.22

11

27.01

27.01

25.98

12

28.43

28.43

28.40

13

28.54

28.54

28.54

Table 6: Comparisons of symmetric normalized, random walk, and un-normalized graph
Laplacian based methods using network ( )
Functional Classes

Accuracy Performance Measures (%)
Network

( )

Normalized

Random Walk

Un-normalized

1

29.63

29.57

29.40

2

34.11

34.11

33.95

3

27.93

27.90

27.70

4

28.51

28.48

28.57

5

34.03

34.03

33.92

6

30.57

30.55

30.04

7

32.08

32.08

32.02

8

33.05

33.03

32.92

9

33.78

33.78

33.75

10

30.18

30.18

29.99

11

32.64

32.64

32.53
22

International Journal on Bioinformatics & Biosciences (IJBB) Vol.3, No.2, June 2013
12

34.53

34.53

34.45

13

34.48

34.48

34.31

Table 7: Comparisons of symmetric normalized, random walk, and un-normalized graph
Laplacian based methods using network ( )
Functional Classes

Accuracy Performance Measures (%)
Network

( )

Normalized

Random Walk

Un-normalized

1

18.31

18.28

18.26

2

20.93

20.90

20.88

3

18.09

18.06

18.09

4

18.39

18.39

18.39

5

21.07

21.07

21.04

6

18.98

18.98

18.90

7

18.73

18.73

18.67

8

19.90

19.90

19.62

9

20.04

20.04

19.93

10

17.31

17.28

17.17

11

19.18

19.18

19.09

12

20.54

20.54

20.57

13

20.54

20.54

20.48

Table 8: Comparisons of symmetric normalized, random walk, and un-normalized graph
Laplacian based methods using network ( )
Functional Classes

Accuracy Performance Measures (%)
Network

( )

Normalized

Random Walk

Un-normalized

1

26.45

26.45

26.51

2

29.21

29.21

29.21
23

International Journal on Bioinformatics & Biosciences (IJBB) Vol.3, No.2, June 2013
3

25.89

25.78

25.92

4

26.76

26.62

26.76

5

29.18

29.18

29.18

6

27.42

27.23

27.42

7

28.21

28.18

28.01

8

28.51

28.54

28.54

9

29.71

29.68

29.65

10

26.81

26.95

27.01

11

28.79

28.82

28.85

12

30.16

30.13

30.16

13

30.18

30.16

30.18

From the above tables, we easily see that the un-normalized (i.e. the published) and normalized
graph Laplacian based semi-supervised learning methods slightly perform better than the random
walk graph Laplacian based semi-supervised learning method using network ( ) and ( ) . For
( )
( )
( )
,
, and
, the random walk and the normalized graph Laplacian based semisupervised learning methods slightly perform better than the un-normalized (i.e. the published)
graph Laplacian based semi-supervised learning method. ( ) , ( ) , and ( ) are all three
networks created with data from the MIPS Comprehensive Yeast Genome Database (CYGD).
Moreover, the accuracy performance measures of all three methods for ( ) , ( ) , ( ) , and
( )
are un-acceptable since they are worse than random guess. Again, this fact occurs due to the
sparseness of these four networks.
( )
For integrated network and every individual network except
, we recognize that the
symmetric normalized graph Laplacian based semi-supervised learning method performs slightly
better than the other two graph Laplacian based methods.

Finally, the accuracy performance measures of these three methods for the integrated network are
much better than the best accuracy performance measure of these three methods for individual
network. Due to the sparseness of the networks, the accuracy performance measures for
individual networks W2, W3, W4, and W5 are unacceptable. They are worse than random guess.
The best accuracy performance measure of these three methods for individual network will be
shown in the following supplemental table.

24

International Journal on Bioinformatics & Biosciences (IJBB) Vol.3, No.2, June 2013

Supplement Table:Comparisons of un-normalized graph Laplacian based methods using
network ( ) and integrated network
Functional Classes

Accuracy Performance Measures (%)
Integrated network

Best individual network

(un-normalized)

(un-normalized)

1

77.20

64.30

2

85.81

71.13

3

77.56

63.91

4

77.62

65.47

5

86.12

71.24

6

80.32

67.11

7

81.83

67.84

8

84.17

69.31

9

86.87

71.52

10

80.52

65.50

11

84.92

70.12

12

87.54

72.63

13

88.32

72.85

( )

5. Conclusion
The detailed iterative algorithms and regularization frameworks for the three normalized, random
walk, and un-normalized graph Laplacian based semi-supervised learning methods applying to
the integrated network from multiple networks have been developed. These three methodsare
successfully applied to the protein function prediction problem (i.e. classification problem).
Moreover, the comparison of the accuracy performance measures for these three methods has
been done.
These three methods can also be applied to cancer classification problems using gene expression
data.
Moreover, these three methods can not only be used in classification problem but also in ranking
problem. In specific, given a set of genes (i.e. the queries) making up a protein complex/pathways
or given a set of genes (i.e. the queries) involved in a specific disease (for e.g. leukemia), these
three methods can also be used to find more potential members of the complex/pathway or more
genes involved in the same disease by ranking genes in gene co-expression network (derived
25

International Journal on Bioinformatics & Biosciences (IJBB) Vol.3, No.2, June 2013

from gene expression data) or the protein-protein interaction network or the integrated network of
them. The genes with the highest rank then will be selected and then checked by biologist experts
to see if the extended genes in fact belong to the same complex/pathway or are involved in the
same disease. These problems are also called complex/pathway membership determination and
biomarker discovery in cancer classification. In cancer classification problem, only the submatrix of the gene expression data of the extended gene list will be used in cancer classification
instead of the whole gene expression data.
Finally, to the best of my knowledge, the normalized, random walk, and un-normalized
hypergraph Laplacian based semi-supervised learning methods have not been applied to the
protein function prediction problem. These methods applied to protein function prediction are
worth investigated since [11] have shown that these hypergraph Laplacian based semisupervisedlearning methods outperform the graph Laplacian based semi-supervised learning
methods in text-categorization and letter recognition.

References
1.
2.
3.

4.
5.

6.
7.
8.

9.
10.
11.

12.

13.
14.

Shin H.H., Lisewski A.M.and Lichtarge O.Graph sharpening plus graph integration: a synergy that
improves protein functional classificationBioinformatics23(23) 3217-3224, 2007
Pearson W.R. and Lipman D.J. Improved tools for biological sequence comparison Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 85(8), 2444–2448, 1998
Lockhart D.J., Dong H., Byrne M.C., Follettie M.T., Gallo M.V., Chee M.S., Mittmann M., Wang
C., Kobayashi M., Horton H., and Brown E.L. Expression monitoring by hybridization to highdensity oligonucleotide arrays Nature Biotechnology, 14(13), 1675–1680, 1996
Shi L., Cho Y., and Zhang A. Prediction of Protein Function from Connectivity of Protein
Interaction Networks International Journal of Computational Bioscience, Vol.1, No. 1, 2010
Lanckriet G.R.G., Deng M., Cristianini N., Jordan M.I., and Noble W.S. Kernel-based data fusion
and its application to protein function prediction in yeastPacific Symposium on Biocomputing
(PSB), 2004
Tsuda K., Shin H.H, and Schoelkopf B. Fast protein classification with multiple networks
Bioinformatics (ECCB’05), 21(Suppl. 2):ii59-ii65, 2005
Schwikowski B., Uetz P., and Fields S. A network of protein–protein interactions in yeast Nature
Biotechnology, 18(12), 1257–1261, 2000
Zhou D., Bousquet O., Lal T.N., Weston J. and Schölkopf B. Learning with Local and Global
Consistency Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS) 16, 321-328. (Eds.) S.
Thrun, L. Saul and B. Schölkopf, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2004
Xiaojin Zhu and Zoubin Ghahramani. Learning from labeled and unlabeled data with label
propagation Technical Report CMU-CALD-02-107, Carnegie Mellon University, 2002
Knutson A. and Tao T. Honeycombs and sums of Hermitian matrices Notices Amer. Math. Soc.
48, no. 2, 175–186, 2001
Zhou D., Huang J. and Schölkopf B. Learning with Hypergraphs: Clustering, Classification, and
Embedding Advances in Neural Information Processing System (NIPS) 19, 1601-1608. (Eds.) B.
Schölkopf, J.C. Platt and T. Hofmann, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2007.
Spellman P., Sherlock G., and et al. Comprehensive identification of cell cycle-regulated genes of
the yeast saccharomyces cerevisiae by microarray hybridization Mol. Biol. Cell, 9:3273– 3297,
1998
Luxburg U. A Tutorial on Spectral Clustering Statistics and Computing 17(4): 395-416, 2007
Shin H., Tsuda K., and Schoelkopf B.Protein functional class prediction with a combined
graphExpert Systems with Applications, 36:3284-3292, 2009

26

