4.8 Article

Reconstructing large interaction networks from empirical time series data

期刊

ECOLOGY LETTERS
卷 24, 期 12, 页码 2763-2774

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/ele.13897

关键词

dynamical stability; interaction network; microbial community; network topology

类别

资金

  1. National Taiwan University, National Center for Theoretical Sciences, Foundation for the Advancement of Outstanding Scholarship
  2. Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A novel approach for reconstructing high-dimensional interaction Jacobian networks without specific model assumptions was proposed in this study, which successfully identified important species and revealed mechanisms governing the dynamical stability of a bacterial community. The method overcame the challenge of high dimensionality in large natural dynamical systems.
Reconstructing interactions from observational data is a critical need for investigating natural biological networks, wherein network dimensionality is usually high. However, these pose a challenge to existing methods that can quantify only small interaction networks. Here, we proposed a novel approach to reconstruct high-dimensional interaction Jacobian networks using empirical time series without specific model assumptions. This method, named multiview distance regularised S-map, generalised the state space reconstruction to accommodate high dimensionality and overcome difficulties in quantifying massive interactions with limited data. When evaluating this method using time series generated from theoretical models involving hundreds of interacting species, estimated strengths of interaction Jacobians were in good agreement with theoretical expectations. Applying this method to a natural bacterial community helped identify important species from the interaction network and revealed mechanisms governing the dynamical stability of a bacterial community. The proposed method overcame the challenge of high dimensionality in large natural dynamical systems.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据