Computational methods of analysis of protein-protein interactions

Current Opinion in Structural Biology

Volumn 13, Issue 3, 2003, Pages 377-382

  Salwinski, Lukasz ^a   Eisenberg, David ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; ANALYTIC METHOD; DATA ANALYSIS; DATA BASE; EVALUATION; EXPERIMENT; GENETIC CODE; MASS SPECTROMETRY; MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS; METABOLISM; PHAGE DISPLAY; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROCESS MODEL; PROTEIN INTERACTION; PROTEIN PROTEIN INTERACTION; PROTEIN PURIFICATION; PROTEIN STRUCTURE; RELIABILITY; REVIEW; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STRUCTURE ANALYSIS; TWO HYBRID SYSTEM; VALIDATION PROCESS; YEAST;

EID: 0037832188     PISSN: 0959440X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0959-440X(03)00070-8     Document Type: Review

References (57)

1. Golemis E (Ed): Protein-Protein Interactions. A Molecular Cloning Manual. Cold Spring Harbor, NY: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press; 2002.
2. Edwards A., Kus B., Jansen R., Greenbaum D., Greenblatt J., Gerstein M. Bridging structural biology and genomics: assessing protein interaction data with known complexes. Trends Genet. 18:2002;529-536 This paper evaluates the differences between the results of biochemical and structural methods of interaction determination.
3. von Mering C., Krause R., Snel B., Cornell M., Oliver S.G., Fields S., Bork P. Comparative assessment of large-scale data sets of protein-protein interactions. Nature. 417:2002;399-403 Comprehensive evaluation of the results of genome-wide interaction screens.
4. Mrowka R., Patzak A., Herzel H. Is there a bias in proteome research? Genome Res. 11:2001;1971-1973.
5. Deane C.M., Salwinski L., Xenarios I., Eisenberg D. Protein interactions: two methods for assessment of the reliability of high throughput observations. Mol. Cell. Proteomics. 1:2002;349-356 This paper describes two publicly available (URL: http://dip.doe-mbi.ucla.edu/Services.cgi ) methods of evaluation of high-throughput protein interaction screens.
6. Grigoriev A. A relationship between gene expression and protein interactions on the proteome scale: analysis of the bacteriophage T7 and the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Nucleic Acids Res. 29:2001;3513-3519.
7. Kemmeren P., van Berkum N.L., Vilo J., Bijma T., Donders R., Brazma A., Holstege F.C. Protein interaction verification and functional annotation by integrated analysis of genome-scale data. Mol. Cell. 9:2002;1133-1143.
8. Jansen R., Greenbaum D., Gerstein M. Relating whole-genome expression data with protein-protein interactions. Genome Res. 12:2002;37-46.
9. Bader JS, Chaudhuri A, Chant J: Computational analysis of genome-scale protein interaction data to define biologically coherent pathways. Nat Biotechnol 2003, in press.
10. Ravasz E., Somera A.L., Mongru D.A., Oltvai Z.N., Barabasi A.L. Hierarchical organization of modularity in metabolic networks. Science. 297:2002;1551-1555.
11. Jeong H., Mason S.P., Barabasi A.L., Oltvai Z.N. Lethality and centrality in protein networks. Nature. 411:2001;41-42 A demonstration that topological localization of proteins within interaction networks correlates with the phenotype they code for.
12. Barabasi A.L., Albert R. Emergence of scaling in random networks. Science. 286:1999;509-512.
13. Jeong H., Tombor B., Albert R., Oltvai Z.N., Barabasi A.L. The large-scale organization of metabolic networks. Nature. 407:2000;651-654.
14. Maslov S., Sneppen K. Specificity and stability in topology of protein networks. Science. 296:2002;910-913.
15. Albert R., Jeong H., Barabasi A.L. Error and attack tolerance of complex networks. Nature. 406:2000;378-382.
16. Rzhetsky A., Gomez S.M. Birth of scale-free molecular networks and the number of distinct DNA and protein domains per genome. Bioinformatics. 17:2001;988-996.
17. Wagner A. Asymmetric functional divergence of duplicate genes in yeast. Mol. Biol. Evol. 19:2002;1760-1768.
18. Eisenberg D., Marcotte E.M., Xenarios I., Yeates T.O. Protein function in the post-genomic era. Nature. 405:2000;823-826.
19. Wojcik J., Schachter V. Protein-protein interaction map inference using interacting domain profile pairs. Bioinformatics. 17(suppl 1):2001;S296-S305.
20. Sprinzak E., Margalit H. Correlated sequence-signatures as markers of protein-protein interaction. J. Mol. Biol. 311:2001;681-692.
21. Deng M., Mehta S., Sun F., Chen T. Inferring domain-domain interactions from protein-protein interactions. Genome Res. 12:2002;1540-1548 A maximum likelihood estimation method for the prediction of protein-protein interaction that utilizes conserved patterns of domain-domain interactions.
22. Lu L., Lu H., Skolnick J. MULTIPROSPECTOR: an algorithm for the prediction of protein-protein interactions by multimeric threading. Proteins. 49:2002;350-364.
23. Matthews L.R., Vaglio P., Reboul J., Ge H., Davis B.P., Garrels J., Vincent S., Vidal M. Identification of potential interaction networks using sequence-based searches for conserved protein-protein interactions or "interologs" Genome Res. 11:2001;2120-2126.
24. Tong A.H., Drees B., Nardelli G., Bader G.D., Brannetti B., Castagnoli L., Evangelista M., Ferracuti S., Nelson B., Paoluzi S.et al. A combined experimental and computational strategy to define protein interaction networks for peptide recognition modules. Science. 295:2002;321-324.
25. Zhou X., Kao M.C., Wong W.H. Transitive functional annotation by shortest-path analysis of gene expression data. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 99:2002;12783-12788 A network-topology-based method of functional annotation.
26. Ideker T., Thorsson V., Ranish J.A., Christmas R., Buhler J., Eng J.K., Bumgarner R., Goodlett D.R., Aebersold R., Hood L. Integrated genomic and proteomic analyses of a systematically perturbed metabolic network. Science. 292:2001;929-934.
27. Lee T.I., Rinaldi N.J., Robert F., Odom D.T., Bar-Joseph Z., Gerber G.K., Hannett N.M., Harbison C.T., Thompson C.M., Simon I.et al. Transcriptional regulatory networks in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Science. 298:2002;799-804.
28. Snel B., Bork P., Huynen M.A. The identification of functional modules from the genomic association of genes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 99:2002;5890-5895.
29. Shen-Orr S.S., Milo R., Mangan S., Alon U. Network motifs in the transcriptional regulation network of Escherichia coli. Nat. Genet. 31:2002;64-68.
30. Milo R., Shen-Orr S., Itzkovitz S., Kashtan N., Chklovskii D., Alon U. Network motifs: simple building blocks of complex networks. Science. 298:2002;824-827.
31. Hartwell L.H., Hopfield J.J., Leibler S., Murray A.W. From molecular to modular cell biology. Nature. 402:1999;47-52.
32. Tyson J.J., Chen K., Novak B. Network dynamics and cell physiology. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell. Biol. 2:2001;908-916.
33. Uetz P., Giot L., Cagney G., Mansfield T.A., Judson R.S., Knight J.R., Lockshon D., Narayan V., Srinivasan M., Pochart P.et al. A comprehensive analysis of protein-protein interactions in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Nature. 403:2000;623-627.
34. Ito T., Chiba T., Ozawa R., Yoshida M., Hattori M., Sakaki Y. A comprehensive two-hybrid analysis to explore the yeast protein interactome. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 98:2001;4569-4574.
35. Boulton S.J., Gartner A., Reboul J., Vaglio P., Dyson N., Hill D.E., Vidal M. Combined functional genomic maps of the C. elegans DNA damage response. Science. 295:2002;127-131.
36. Walhout A.J., Reboul J., Shtanko O., Bertin N., Vaglio P., Ge H., Lee H., Doucette-Stamm L., Gunsalus K.C., Schetter A.J.et al. Integrating interactome, phenome and transcriptome mapping data for the C. elegans germline. Curr. Biol. 12:2002;1952-1958.
37. Ho Y., Gruhler A., Heilbut A., Bader G.D., Moore L., Adams S.L., Millar A., Taylor P., Bennett K., Boutilier K.et al. Systematic identification of protein complexes in Saccharomyces cerevisiae by mass spectrometry. Nature. 415:2002;180-183.
38. Gavin A.C., Bosche M., Krause R., Grandi P., Marzioch M., Bauer A., Schultz J., Rick J.M., Michon A.M., Cruciat C.M.et al. Functional organization of the yeast proteome by systematic analysis of protein complexes. Nature. 415:2002;141-147 A comprehensive study of protein-protein interactions in yeast that uses tandem affinity purification (TAP) methodology to purify tagged protein complexes followed by mass spectrometric identification of individual components of the complexes. The native expression levels and stringent complex purification protocol ensure high-quality results.
39. Zhu H., Bilgin M., Bangham R., Hall D., Casamayor A., Bertone P., Lan N., Jansen R., Bidlingmaier S., Houfek T.et al. Global analysis of protein activities using proteome chips. Science. 293:2001;2101-2105.
40. Tong A.H., Evangelista M., Parsons A.B., Xu H., Bader G.D., Page N., Robinson M., Raghibizadeh S., Hogue C.W., Bussey H.et al. Systematic genetic analysis with ordered arrays of yeast deletion mutants. Science. 294:2001;2364-2368.
41. •].
42. •].
43. •] describe the most comprehensive protein-protein interaction databases available publicly online.
44. Mewes H.W., Frishman D., Guldener U., Mannhaupt G., Mayer K., Mokrejs M., Morgenstern B., Munsterkotter M., Rudd S., Weil B. MIPS: a database for genomes and protein sequences. Nucleic Acids Res. 30:2002;31-34.
45. Duan X.J., Xenarios I., Eisenberg D. Describing biological protein interactions in terms of protein states and state transitions: the LiveDIP database. Mol. Cell. Proteomics. 1:2002;104-116.
46. Mellor J.C., Yanai I., Clodfelter K.H., Mintseris J., DeLisi C. Predictome: a database of putative functional links between proteins. Nucleic Acids Res. 30:2002;306-309.
47. von Mering C., Huynen M., Jaeggi D., Schmidt S., Bork P., Snel B. STRING: a database of predicted functional associations between proteins. Nucleic Acids Res. 31:2003;258-261.
48. Dandekar T., Snel B., Huynen M., Bork P. Conservation of gene order: a fingerprint of proteins that physically interact. Trends Biochem. Sci. 23:1998;324-328.
49. Overbeek R., Fonstein M., D'Souza M., Pusch G.D., Maltsev N. The use of gene clusters to infer functional coupling. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 96:1999;2896-2901.
50. Pellegrini M., Marcotte E.M., Thompson M.J., Eisenberg D., Yeates T.O. Assigning protein functions by comparative genome analysis: protein phylogenetic profiles. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 96:1999;4285-4288.
51. Marcotte E.M., Pellegrini M., Ng H.L., Rice D.W., Yeates T.O., Eisenberg D. Detecting protein function and protein-protein interactions from genome sequences. Science. 285:1999;751-753.
52. Ng S.K., Zhang Z., Tan S.H., Lin K. InterDom: a database of putative interacting protein domains for validating predicted protein interactions and complexes. Nucleic Acids Res. 31:2003;251-254.
53. Wojcik J., Boneca I.G., Legrain P. Prediction, assessment and validation of protein interaction maps in bacteria. J. Mol. Biol. 323:2002;763-770.
54. Pazos F., Valencia A. In silico two-hybrid system for the selection of physically interacting protein pairs. Proteins. 47:2002;219-227.
55. Pazos F., Valencia A. Similarity of phylogenetic trees as indicator of protein-protein interaction. Protein Eng. 14:2001;609-614.
56. Liberles D.A., Thoren A., Heijne G.V., Elofsson A. The use of phylogenetic profiles for gene predictions. Current Genomics. 3:2002;131-137.
57. Vert J.P. A tree kernel to analyse phylogenetic profiles. Bioinformatics. 18(suppl 1):2002;S276-S284.