Node connection strength in FlyTree.
Each node in FlyTree can be characterized by its mean distance from every other
node. Below is a histogram of mean distances for every node in the tree.
The final bin includes nodes that are not connected to the main tree.
Note also that only individuals whose primary affiliation is this tree are included. Nodes cross-listed
from other academic trees are included on their primary tree.
|
Mean inter-node distance | |||||||||||
| 959- |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 767- | |||||||||||
| 575- | |||||||||||
| 384- | |||||||||||
| 192- | |||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||
| 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14+ | |
| Mean distance | |||||||||||
|
Number of nodes | |||||||||||
20 most tightly coupled nodes.
Below are the FlyTree nodes with shortest mean distance.
| Rank | Mean dist | Name | Institution | Area | Date | |
| 1 | 4.33 | David S. Hogness (Info) | Stanford University | genetic regulation | 2006-09-18 | |
| 2 | 4.55 | Gerald M. Rubin (Info) | HHMI, UC Berkeley | structure, function of fly genome | 2006-09-24 | |
| 3 | 4.98 | Michael Levine (Info) | University of California, Berkeley | developmental patterning, segmentation | 2008-04-17 | |
| 4 | 4.99 | Michael Ashburner (Info) | University of Cambridge | genome organization and evolution | 2008-04-17 | |
| 5 | 5.08 | Eric F. Wieschaus (Info) | Princeton University | embryonic development | 2008-04-17 | |
| 6 | 5.13 | Greg Gibson (Info) | Georgia Institute of Technology | Evolutionary Genomics | 2008-05-23 | |
| 7 | 5.18 | Herschel K. Mitchell (Info) | California Institute of Technology | 2008-04-17 | ||
| 8 | 5.25 | Mary Bownes (Info) | University of Edinburgh | 2008-04-17 | ||
| 9 | 5.25 | Thomas Hunt Morgan (Info) | California Institute of Technology | Fruit Flies | 2005-02-05 | |
| 10 | 5.28 | Michael L. Goldberg (Info) | Cornell University | 2008-08-18 | ||
| 11 | 5.28 | Renato Paro (Info) | 2008-04-17 | |||
| 12 | 5.28 | Kenneth C. Burtis (Info) | University of California, Davis | sex determination, DNA repair | 2008-04-17 | |
| 13 | 5.33 | Bob Karp (Info) | 2008-04-17 | |||
| 14 | 5.33 | Kenneth D. Irvine (Info) | Rutgers University, New Brunswick | Cell-signaling, growth control, cancer, morphogenesis, mechanotransduction | 2008-04-17 | |
| 15 | 5.34 | Michael Akam (Info) | 2008-04-17 | |||
| 16 | 5.35 | Kevin Moses (Info) | 2008-04-17 | |||
| 17 | 5.36 | Dan Garza (Info) | 2008-04-17 | |||
| 18 | 5.37 | Mark Krasnow (Info) | Stanford University | molecular, genetic, and cellular mechanisms of tracheal development | 2008-06-12 | |
| 19 | 5.38 | John T. Lis (Info) | Cornell University | transcription and processing of mRNAs | 2008-04-17 | |
| 20 | 5.39 | Allan Spradling (Info) | Carnegie Institution of Washington | Developmental Biology, Genetics | 2008-04-17 |
Distribution of individual connectivity.
Another way to look at the FlyTree graph is to plot a histogram of
researchers (nodes) based according to the number of immediate connections
(edges) they have to other researchers. The final bin includes nodes with
16 or more connections. The actual distribution has a very long tail, with a maximum of 139 connections. Thanks to Adam Snyder for suggesting this analysis!
|
Edge vs node distribution | ||||||||||||||||
| 2681- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2145- | ||||||||||||||||
| 1609- | ||||||||||||||||
| 1072- | ||||||||||||||||
| 536- | ||||||||||||||||
|
| ||||||||||||||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16+ | |
| Number of connections | ||||||||||||||||
|
Node count | ||||||||||||||||