Arly onset of transition in SRN-ANs (Figure 1) is attributed for the truth that they have a considerable decrease strength of interaction (Iij ) than LRN-ANs (two.56 and 2.86, respectively, with p 0.05). Nevertheless, we must mention that the SC1 web average degree of SRN-ANs is larger than LRN-ANs at Imin=0 (four.03 and three.93, respectively).However, the LRN and ARN at Imin =0 do not have chain like structures (Extra File three) and thus they are far more resistant towards the elimination of edges as Imin increases. This is also one of many motives why the transitions of LRN and ARN are extra comparable. In addition, in ARN-ANs, at decrease Imin cutoff, when all of the residues are connected within a single big cluster, each the long- and short-range interactions are involved in it. But as we increase the cutoff, the contribution from shortrange interactions decreases far more rapidly than long-range interactions. And thereafter (at greater Imin cut off ), the residues within the protein network are mainly connected by the long-range interactions. So, these clarify the comparable transition nature of LCC in ARN-ANs and LRN-ANs. It truly is also effectively established that the long-range interactions (interactions amongst amino acids distantly placed in key structure) stabilizes the tertiary structural integration of a protein. Thus, the comparable transition behaviour of LRN and ARN can also be anticipated. The similarity in transition profile of long-range and all-range network’s LCC in proteins recommend that long-range interactions are guiding the overall topology and stability from the tertiary structure of a protein. In the very same time, we need to give emphasis on one more point described under. The interaction strength gives a clear measure of how the amino acids are connected and tightly bound inside a protein, which in turn is associated towards the packing and stability of a protein. The tertiary structure is primarily stabilized via interactions among amino acids placed at long distant in the major structure. Hence, the existence of comparative larger sizeSengupta and Kundu BMC Bioinformatics 2012, 13:142 http:www.biomedcentral.com1471-210513Page 6 ofTable 1 Typical cluster size, average Pearson correlation coefficient ( r ) and average clustering coefficients ( C ) of hydrophobic (BN), hydrophilic (IN), charged (CN), and PubMed ID:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21331607 all-amino-acids (AN) networks at various length scales viz. the long-range (LRN), short-range (SRN) and all-range (ARN) interaction networks are listed for Imin =Length scale LRN Variety BN IN AN Avg cluster size 101.59 53.66 44.16 13.03 350.5 134.77 38.55 11.ten 430.93 145.06 156.59 70.75 68.38 41.33 47.42 18.34 436.28 141.01 r 0.13 0.ten -0.04 0.19 0.17 0.07 -0.11 0.17 0.21 0.06 0.27 0.08 0.15 0.15 0.14 0.16 0.30 0.04 C 0.24 0.05 0.14 0.06 0.16 0.03 0.29 0.08 0.35 0.03 0.39 0.03 0.29 0.06 0.27 0.07 0.35 0.SRNBN ANARNBN IN CN ANLCC in LRNs at greater Imin suggests that a protein might will need larger quantity of attainable non-covalent interactions (moreover to other people) in bringing and holding with each other distant part of the primary structure of a protein in 3D space. The distinction in transition profiles of LRN and SRN clearly also indicate that the cooperativities of their transitions are distinctive. One could possibly be interested to compare the cooperativity indexes of these transitions. The shape of the LCC size versus Imin curve could be expressed inside the terms in the ratio in the Imin cutoff at which the transitions begins along with the Imin cutoff at which the clusters just break down into a lot of small sub-c.