Fuzziness pp 184-190 | Cite as

“Fuzziness” in the Celular Interactome: A Historical Perspective

  • G. Rickey Welch
Part of the Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology book series (AEMB, volume 725)


Some historical background is given for appreciating the impact of the empirical construct known as the cellular protein-protein interactome, which is a seemingly de novo entity that has arisen of late within the context of postgenomic systems biology. The approach here builds on a generalized principle of “fuzziness” in protein behavior, proposed by Tompa and Fuxreiter.1 Recent controversies in the analysis and interpretation of the interactome studies are rationalized historically under the auspices of this concept. There is an extensive literature on protein-protein interactions, dating to the mid-1900s, which may help clarify the “fuzziness” in the interactome picture and, also, provide a basis for understanding the physiological importance of protein-protein interactions in vivo.


Empirical Construct Unstructured Protein Macromolecular Interaction Interactome Study Macromolecular Site 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Tompa P, Fuxreiter M. Fuzzy complexes: Polymorphism and structural disorder in protein-protein interaction. Trends Biochem Sci 2008; 33:2–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Vinson V. Proteins in motion: Introduction. Science 2009; 324(5924):197.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Henzler-Wildman K, Kern D. Dynamic personalities of proteins. Nature 2007; 450(7172):964–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    McCammon JA, Harvey SC. Dynamics of Proteins and Nucleic Acids. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Welch GR, Somogyi B, Damjanovich S. The role of protein fluctuations in enzyme action. Prog Biophys Mol Biol 1982; 39:109–146.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Welch GR, ed. The Fluctuating Enzyme. New York: Wiley, 1986.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Somogyi B, Welch GR, Damjanovich S. The protein-dynamical basis of energy transduction in enzymes. Biochim Biophys Acta (Reviews on Bioenergetics) 1984; 768:81–112.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Swint-Kruse L, Fisher HF. Enzymatic reaction sequences as coupled multiple traces on a multidimensional landscape. Trends Biochem Sci 2008; 33:104–112.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tokuriki N, Tawfik DS. Protein dynamism and evolvability. Science 2009; 324:203–207.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wright PE, Dyson HJ. Intrinsically unstructured proteins: Re-assessing the protein structure-function paradigm. J Mol Biol 1999; 293:321–331.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Tompa P. Intrinsically unstructured proteins. Trends Biochem Sci 2002; 27:527–533.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Westerhoff HV, Welch GR. Enzyme organization and the direction of metabolic flow. In: Stadtman ER, Chock PB, eds. From Metabolite, to Metabolism, to Metabolon (Current Topics in Cellular Regulation, Vol. 33). New York: Academic Press, 1992:361–390.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ovadi J. Cell Architecture and Metabolic Channeling. Austin: Landes Bioscience 1995.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Brindle K, ed. Enzymology In Vivo (Advances in Molecular and Cell Biology, Vol. 11). London: JAI Press, 1995.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Srere P. Complexes of sequential metabolic enzymes. Annu Rev Biochem 1987; 56:21–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Srere P. Macromolecular interactions: Tracing the roots. Trends Biochem Sci 2000; 25:150–153.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Aloy P, Russell RB. Structural systems biology: Modelling protein interactions. Nature Rev Mol Cell Biol 2006; 7:188–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Chouard T, Finkelstein J. Proteins to proteomes. Nature 2007; 450:963.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Abbott A. Proteomics: The society of proteins. Nature 2002; 417:894–896.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Robinson CV, Sali A, Baumeister W. The molecular sociology of the cell. Nature 2007; 450:973–982.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Welch GR. On the role of organized multienzyme systems in cellular metabolism: A general synthesis. Prog Biophys Mol Biol 1977; 32:103–191.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Welch GR, Keleti T. On the “cytosociology” of enzyme action in vivo: A novel thermodynamic correlate of biological evolution. J Theor Biol 1981; 93:701–735.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Anderson NG. Interactive macromolecular sites I. Basic theory. J Theor Biol 1976; 60:401–412.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    McConkey EH. Molecular evolution, intracellular organization and the quinary structure of proteins. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1982; 79:3236–3240.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Anderson NG. J Theor Biol 1976; 60:413–419.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Barabasi A-L, Oltvai ZN. Network biology: Understanding the cell’s functional organization. Nature Rev Genetics 2004; 5:101–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Welch GR. The “fuzzy” interactome. Trends Biochem Sci 2009; 34:1–2.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Mackay JP, Sunde M, Lowry JA et al. Protein interactions: Is seeing believing? Trends Biochem Sci 2007; 32:530–531.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Chatr-aryamontri A, Ceol A, Licata L et al. Protein interactions: Integration leads to belief. Trends Biochem Sci 2008; 33:241–242.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Mackay JP, Sunde M, Lowry JA et al. Response to Chatr-aryamontri et al: Protein interactions: To believe or not to believe? Trends Biochem Sci 2008; 33:242–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wilkins MR, Kummerfeld SK. Sticking together? Falling apart? Exploring the dynamics of the interactome. Trends Biochem Sci 2008; 33:195–200.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Alberts B. The cell as a collection of protein machines: Preparing the next generation of molecular biologists. Cell 1998; 92:291–294.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Jansen R, Gerstein M. Analyzing protein function on a genomic scale: The importance of gold-standard positives and negatives for network prediction. Curr Opin Microbiol 2004; 7:535–545.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Welch GR, Kell DB. Not just catalysts—molecular machines in bioenergetics. In: Welch GR, ed. The Fluctuating Enzyme. New York: Wiley, 1986:451–492.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Welch GR. The organization of metabolic pathways in vivo. In: Bittar EE, Bittar N, eds. Cell Chemistry and Physiology (Principles of Medical Biology, Vol. 4). London: JAI Press, 1995:77–92.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Perkel JM. Validating the interactome. Scientist 2004; 18:18.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Legrain P, Wojcik J, Gauthier J-M. Protein-protein interaction maps: A lead towards cellular functions. Trends Genet 2001; 17:346–352.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Kell DB, Oliver SG. Here is the evidence, now what is the hypothesis? The complementary roles of inductive-and hypothesis-driven science in the postgenomicera. BioEssays 2004; 26:99–105.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Tarassov K, Messier V, Landry CR et al. An in vivo map of the yeast protein interactome. Science 2008; 320:1465–1470.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Clegg JS, Kell DB, Knull H et al. Macromolecular interactions: Tracing the roots. Trends Biochem Sci 2001; 26:91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Welch GR. Physiology, physiomics and biophysics: A matter of words. Prog Biophys Mol Biol 2009; 100:4–17.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Landes Bioscience and Springer Science+Business Media 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • G. Rickey Welch
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Biological Sciences and Department of HistoryUniversity of MarylandBaltimoreUSA

Personalised recommendations