The Use of Protein—protein Interaction Networks for Genome Wide Protein Function Comparisons and Predictions
The concept of protein function is widely used by biologists. However, the means of the concept and its understanding can vary largely depending on the functional level under consideration (molecular, cellular, physiological, etc.) Function is therefore a complex notion and the development of efficient ways of representing function which can be computer-tractable is presently the goal of many research efforts. Moreover, genomic studies and new high-throughput methods of the post-genomic era provide the opportunity to shed a new light on the concept of protein function. Among them, the analysis of large protein—protein networks will permit the emergence of a more integrated view of protein function.
In this context, we have proposed a new method for protein function comparison and classification which, unlike usual methods based on sequence homology, permits the definition of functional classes of protein based solely on the identity of their interacting partners, thus giving access for the first time to function at the cellular level. This method, named PRODISTIN for Protein Distance based on Interactions, has been first applied to the Saccharomyces cerevisiae interactome (proteome-wide protein—protein interactions). An example of a classification/comparison is shown and discussed for a subset of S. cerevisiae proteins, accounting for 10% of its proteome (600 proteins). Functional classification trees have also been made for the Helicobacter pylori proteome, confirming the generic aspect of the method. We demonstrated that the method is robust (biologically and statistically) and can be used to predict function for unknown proteins and groups of proteins.
Finally, the potential use of protein—protein interaction data and of the PRODISTIN method in structural biology projects is presented and discussed. In the future, this method could also be potentially applied to other types of networks such as transcriptional and genetic networks.
KeywordsProtein Function Interaction Network Interaction Data Genetic Network Large Protein Complex
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Ashburner M, Ball CA, Blake JA, Botstein D, Butler H, Cherry JM, Davis AP, Dolinski K, Dwight SS, Eppig JT, Harris MA, Hill DP, Issel-Tarver L, Kasarskis A, Lewis S, Matese JC, Richardson JE, Ringwald M, Rubin GM, Sherlock G (2000) Gene ontology: tool for the unification of biology. The Gene Ontology Consortium. Nat Genet 25: 25–29Google Scholar
- 3.Breitkreutz BJ, Stark C, Tyers M (2003) Osprey: a network visualization system. Genome Biol 4:R22 122 Christine Brun et al.Google Scholar
- 5.Brun C, Wojcik J, Guénoche A, Jacq B (2002) Bioinformatic study of interaction networks: PRODISTIN, a new method for a functionnal classification of proteins. In: Nicolas J, Thermes C (eds) Journées Ouvertes Biologie Informatique Mathématiques (JOBIM’2002). Saint Malo, France, p 171–182Google Scholar
- 7.Costanzo MC, Crawford ME, Hirschman JE, Kranz JE, Olsen P, Robertson LS, Skrzypek MS, Braun BR, Hopkins KL, Kondu P, Lengieza C, Lew-Smith JE, Tillberg M, Garrels JI (2001) YPD, Pombe PD and Worm PD: model organism volumes of the BioKnowledge library, an integrated resource for protein information. Nucleic Acids Res 29: 75–79Google Scholar
- 16.Gavin AC, Bosche M, Krause R, Grandi P, Marzioch M, Bauer A, Schultz J, Rick JM, Michon AM, Cruciat CM, Remor M, Hofert C, Schelder M, Brajenovic M, Ruffner H, Merino A, Klein K, Hudak M, Dickson D, Rudi T, Gnau V, Bauch A, Bastuck S, Huhse B, Leutwein C, Heurtier MA, Copley RR, Edelmann A, Querfurth E, Rybin V, Drewes G, Raida M, Bouwmeester T, Bork P, Seraphin B, Kuster B, Neubauer G, Superti-Furga G (2002) Functional organization of the yeast proteome by systematic analysis of protein complexes. Nature 415: 141–147PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 19.Ho Y, Gruhler A, Heilbut A, Bader GD, Moore L, Adams SL, Millar A, Taylor P, Bennett K, Boutilier K, Yang L, Wolting C, Donaldson I, Schandorff S, Shewnarane J, Vo M, Taggart J, Goudreault M, Muskat B, Alfarano C, Dewar D, Lin Z, Michalickova K, Willems AR, Sassi H, Nielsen PA, Rasmussen KJ, Andersen JR, Johansen LE, Hansen LH, Jespersen H, Podtelejnikov A, Nielsen E, Crawford J, Poulsen V, Sorensen BD, Matthiesen J, Hendrickson RC, Gleeson F, Pawson T, Moran MF, Durocher D, Mann M, Hogue CW, Figeys D, Tyers M (2002) Systematic identification of protein complexes in Saccharomyces cerevisiae by mass spectrometry. Nature 415: 180–183PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 24.Kolchanov NA, Nedosekina EA, Ananko EA, Likhoshvai VA, Podkolodny NL, Ratushny AV, Stepanenko IL, Podkolodnaya OA, Ignatieva EV, Matushkin YG (2002) GeneNet database: description and modeling of gene networks. In Silico Biol 2: 97–110Google Scholar
- 28.Marcotte EM, Pellegrini M, Thompson MJ,Yeates TO, Eisenberg D (1999) A combined algorithm for genome-wide prediction of protein function. Nature 402: 83–86Google Scholar
- 43.Uetz P, Giot L, Cagney G, Mansfield TA, Judson RS, Knight JR, Lockshon D, Narayan V, Srinivasan M, Pochart P, Qureshi-Emili A, Li Y, Godwin B, Conover D, Kalbfleisch T, Vijayadamodar G, Yang M, Johnston M, Fields S, Rothberg JM (2000) A comprehensive analysis of protein-protein interactions in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Nature 403: 623–627PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 46.Xu BE, Skowronek KR, Kurjan J (2001) The N terminus of Saccharomyces cerevisiae Sst2p plays an RGS-domain-independent, Mpt5p-dependent role in recovery from pheromone arrest. Genetics 159: 1559–1571Google Scholar