EvoPPI 1.0: a Web Platform for Within- and Between-Species Multiple Interactome Comparisons and Application to Nine PolyQ Proteins Determining Neurodegenerative Diseases
Protein–protein interaction (PPI) data is essential to elucidate the complex molecular relationships in living systems, and thus understand the biological functions at cellular and systems levels. The complete map of PPIs that can occur in a living organism is called the interactome. For animals, PPI data is stored in multiple databases (e.g., BioGRID, CCSB, DroID, FlyBase, HIPPIE, HitPredict, HomoMINT, INstruct, Interactome3D, mentha, MINT, and PINA2) with different formats. This makes PPI comparisons difficult to perform, especially between species, since orthologous proteins may have different names. Moreover, there is only a partial overlap between databases, even when considering a single species. The EvoPPI (http://evoppi.i3s.up.pt) web application presented in this paper allows comparison of data from the different databases at the species level, or between species using a BLAST approach. We show its usefulness by performing a comparative study of the interactome of the nine polyglutamine (polyQ) disease proteins, namely androgen receptor (AR), atrophin-1 (ATN1), ataxin 1 (ATXN1), ataxin 2 (ATXN2), ataxin 3 (ATXN3), ataxin 7 (ATXN7), calcium voltage-gated channel subunit alpha1 A (CACNA1A), Huntingtin (HTT), and TATA-binding protein (TBP). Here we show that none of the human interactors of these proteins is common to all nine interactomes. Only 15 proteins are common to at least 4 of these polyQ disease proteins, and 40% of these are involved in ubiquitin protein ligase-binding function. The results obtained in this study suggest that polyQ disease proteins are involved in different functional networks. Comparisons with Mus musculus PPIs are also made for AR and TBP, using EvoPPI BLAST search approach (a unique feature of EvoPPI), with the goal of understanding why there is a significant excess of common interactors for these proteins in humans.
KeywordsProtein–protein interactions databases Inter-specific comparisons PolyQ disease proteins
This article is a result of the project Norte-01-0145-FEDER-000008—Porto Neurosciences and Neurologic Disease Research Initiative at I3S, supported by Norte Portugal Regional Operational Programme (NORTE 2020), under the PORTUGAL 2020 Partnership Agreement, through the European Regional Development Fund (FEDER). Sara Rocha is also supported by this project. H. López-Fernández is supported by a post-doctoral fellowship from Xunta de Galicia (ED481B 2016/068-0). SING group thanks Centro de Investigación, Transferencia e Innovación (CITI) from University of Vigo for hosting its IT infrastructure. Financial support from the Xunta de Galicia (Centro singular de investigación de Galicia accreditation 2016–2019) and the European Union (European Regional Development Fund—ERDF), is gratefully acknowledged.
- 6.Peng X, Wang J, Peng W, Wu F-X, Pan Y (2017) Protein–protein interactions: detection, reliability assessment and applications. Brief Bioinform 18:798–819Google Scholar
- 10.Simonis N, Rual J-F, Carvunis A-R, Tasan M, Lemmens I, Hirozane-Kishikawa T, Hao T, Sahalie JM, Venkatesan K, Gebreab F, Cevik S, Klitgord N, Fan C, Braun P, Li N, Ayivi-Guedehoussou N, Dann E, Bertin N, Szeto D, Dricot A, Yildirim MA, Lin C, de Smet A-S, Kao H-L, Simon C, Smolyar A, Ahn JS, Tewari M, Boxem M, Milstein S, Yu H, Dreze M, Vandenhaute J, Gunsalus KC, Cusick ME, Hill DE, Tavernier J, Roth FP, Vidal M (2009) Empirically controlled mapping of the Caenorhabditis elegans protein–protein interactome network. Nat Methods 6:47–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 11.Rolland T, Taşan M, Charloteaux B, Pevzner SJ, Zhong Q, Sahni N, Yi S, Lemmens I, Fontanillo C, Mosca R, Kamburov A, Ghiassian SD, Yang X, Ghamsari L, Balcha D, Begg BE, Braun P, Brehme M, Broly MP, Carvunis A-R, Convery-Zupan D, Corominas R, Coulombe-Huntington J, Dann E, Dreze M, Dricot A, Fan C, Franzosa E, Gebreab F, Gutierrez BJ, Hardy MF, Jin M, Kang S, Kiros R, Lin GN, Luck K, MacWilliams A, Menche J, Murray RR, Palagi A, Poulin MM, Rambout X, Rasla J, Reichert P, Romero V, Ruyssinck E, Sahalie JM, Scholz A, Shah AA, Sharma A, Shen Y, Spirohn K, Tam S, Tejeda AO, Trigg SA, Twizere J-C, Vega K, Walsh J, Cusick ME, Xia Y, Barabási A-L, Iakoucheva LM, Aloy P, De Las Rivas, J, Tavernier J, Calderwood MA, Hill DE, Hao T, Roth FP, Vidal M (2014) A proteome-scale map of the human interactome network. Cell 159:1212–1226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 12.Yu H, Tardivo L, Tam S, Weiner E, Gebreab F, Fan C, Svrzikapa N, Hirozane-Kishikawa T, Rietman E, Yang X, Sahalie J, Salehi-Ashtiani K, Hao T, Cusick ME, Hill DE, Roth FP, Braun P, Vidal M (2011) Next-generation sequencing to generate interactome datasets. Nat Methods 8:478–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 13.Rual J-F, Venkatesan K, Hao T, Hirozane-Kishikawa T, Dricot A, Li N, Berriz GF, Gibbons FD, Dreze M, Ayivi-Guedehoussou N, Klitgord N, Simon C, Boxem M, Milstein S, Rosenberg J, Goldberg DS, Zhang LV, Wong SL, Franklin G, Li S, Albala JS, Lim J, Fraughton C, Llamosas E, Cevik S, Bex C, Lamesch P, Sikorski RS, Vandenhaute J, Zoghbi HY, Smolyar A, Bosak S, Sequerra R, Doucette-Stamm L, Cusick ME, Hill DE, Roth FP, Vidal M (2005) Towards a proteome-scale map of the human protein–protein interaction network. Nature 437:1173–1178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 14.Venkatesan K, Rual J-F, Vazquez A, Stelzl U, Lemmens I, Hirozane-Kishikawa T, Hao T, Zenkner M, Xin X, Goh K-I, Yildirim MA, Simonis N, Heinzmann K, Gebreab F, Sahalie JM, Cevik S, Simon C, de Smet A-S, Dann E, Smolyar A, Vinayagam A, Yu H, Szeto D, Borick H, Dricot A, Klitgord N, Murray RR, Lin C, Lalowski M, Timm J, Rau K, Boone C, Braun P, Cusick ME, Roth FP, Hill DE, Tavernier J, Wanker EE, Barabási A-L, Vidal M (2009) An empirical framework for binary interactome mapping. Nat Methods 6:83–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 26.Fielding RT (2000) Architectural styles and the design of network-based software architectures. University of California, IrvineGoogle Scholar