Computational approaches for the prediction of protein-protein interactions: A survey

Current Bioinformatics

Volumn 6, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 398-414

  Theofilatos, Konstantinos A ^a   Dimitrakopoulos, Christos M ^a   Tsakalidis, Athanasios K ^a   Likothanassis, Spyridon D ^a   Papadimitriou, Stergios T ^b   Mavroudi, Seferina P ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PATRAS   (Greece)

^b TECHNOLOGICAL EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTE OF KAVALA   (Greece)

Author keywords

Bayesian classifiers; Computational methods; Databases; Experimental methods; Machine learning; Neural networks; Protein protein interactions; Random forests; Svm

Indexed keywords

BAYESIAN NETWORKS; CLASSIFICATION (OF INFORMATION); COMPUTATIONAL METHODS; DATABASE SYSTEMS; FORECASTING; LEARNING SYSTEMS; PROTEINS;

BAYESIAN CLASSIFIER; CELLULAR PROCESS; COMPUTATIONAL APPROACH; EXPERIMENTAL APPROACHES; EXPERIMENTAL METHODS; MACHINE-LEARNING; NEURAL-NETWORKS; PROTEIN-PROTEIN INTERACTIONS; RANDOM FORESTS; SVM;

NEURAL NETWORKS;

ARTICLE; ARTIFICIAL NEURAL NETWORK; BAYES THEOREM; DATA BASE; GENETIC ANALYSIS; HUMAN; MASS SPECTROMETRY; METHODOLOGY; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROTEIN ANALYSIS; PROTEIN MICROARRAY; PROTEIN PROTEIN INTERACTION; RANDOM FOREST; SUPPORT VECTOR MACHINE;

EID: 81155126453     PISSN: 15748936     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2174/157489311798072981     Document Type: Article

References (131)

1. Auerbach D, Thaminy S, Hottiger MO, Stagljar I. The post- genomic era of interactive proteomics: facts and perspectives. Proteomics 2002; 2: pp. 611-23.
2. Fields S, Song O. A novel genetic system to detect protein-protein interactions. Nature 1989; 340: pp. 245-46.
3. Kumar A, Snyder M. Protein complexes take the bait. Nature 2002; 415: 123-24.
4. Gavin A, Bosche M, Krause R, et al. Functional organization of the yeast proteome by systematic analysis of protein complexes. Nature 2002; 415: pp. 141-47.
5. MacBeath G, Schreiber SL. Printing proteins as microarrays for high-throughput function determination. Science 2000; 289: pp. 1760-63.
6. Puig O, Caspary F, Rigaut G, et al. The Tandem Affinity Purification (TAP) Method: A general procedure of protein complex purification. Methods 2001; 24: pp. 218-29.
7. Pagel P, Kovac S, Oesterheld M, et al. The MIPS mammalian protein-protein interaction database. Bioinformatics 2005; 21: pp. 832-34.
8. Chatr-aryamontri A, Ceol A, Palazzi LM, et al. MINT: the Molecular INTeraction database. Nucleic Acids Res 2007; 35: pp. D572-74.
9. Aranda B, Achuthan P, Alam-Faruque Y, et al. The IntAct molecular interaction database in 2010. Nucleic Acids Res 2010; 38: pp. D525-31.
10. Xenarios I, Salwínski L, Duan XJ, et al. DIP, the Database of Interacting Proteins: a research tool for studying cellular networks of protein interactions. Nucleic Acids Res 2002; 30: pp. 303-05.
11. Bader GD, Donaldson I, Wolting C, et al. BIND-The Biomolecular Interaction Network Database. Nucleic Acids Res 2001; 29: pp. 242-45.
12. Keshava Prasad TS, Goel R, Kandasamy K, et al. Human Protein Reference Database-2009 update. Nucleic Acids Res 2009; 37: pp. D767-72.
13. Stark C, Breitkreutz B, Reguly T, et al. BioGRID: a general repository for interaction datasets. Nucleic Acids Res 2006; 34: pp. D535-39.
14. Chen Y, Chen H, Yang J. DAPID: a 3D-domain annotated protein-protein interaction database. Genome Informatics. Intl Conf Genome Inform 2006; 17: pp. 206-15.
15. Berman HM, Westbrook J, Feng Z, et al. The Protein Data Bank. Nucleic Acids Res 2000; 28: pp. 235-42.
16. Raghavachari B, Tasneem A, Przytycka TM, Jothi R. DOMINE: a database of protein domain interactions. Nucleic Acids Res 2008; 36: pp. D656-61.
17. Szklarczyk D, Franceschini A, Kuhn M, et al. The STRING database in 2011: functional interaction networks of proteins, globally integrated and scored. Nucleic Acids Res 2010; 39: pp. D561-68.
18. Razick S, Magklaras G, Donaldson I. iRefIndex: A consolidated protein interaction database with provenance. BMC Bioinformatics 2008; 9: p. 405.
19. O'Brien KP, Remm M, Sonnhammer ELL. Inparanoid: a comprehensive database of eukaryotic orthologs. Nucleic Acids Res 2005; 33: pp. D476-80.
20. Hunter S, Apweiler R, Attwood TK, et al. InterPro: the integrative protein signature database. Nucleic Acids Res 2009; 37: pp. D211-15.
21. Finn RD, Mistry J, Schuster-Böckler B, et al. Pfam: clans, web tools and services. Nucleic Acids Res 2006; 34: pp. D247-51.
22. Ashburner M, Ball CA, Blake JA, et al. Gene ontology: tool for the unification of biology. The Gene Ontology Consortium. Nat Genet 2000; 25: pp. 25-29.
23. Andreeva A, Howorth D, Brenner SE, et al. SCOP database in 2004: refinements integrate structure and sequence family data. Nucleic Acids Res 2004; 32: pp. D226-29.
24. Greene LH, Lewis T.E, Addou S, et al. The CATH domain structure structure database: new protocols and classification levelsgive more comprehensive resource for exploiting evolution. Nucleic Acids Res 2007; 35: pp. D291-97.
25. Dandekar T, Snel B, Huynen M, Bork P. Conservation of gene order: a fingerprint of proteins that physically interact. Trends Biochem Sci 1998; 23: pp. 324-28.
26. Koonin EV, Galperin MY. Prokaryotic genomes: the emerging paradigm of genome-based microbiology. Curr Opinion Genet & Develop 1997; 7: pp. 757-63.
27. Siefert JL, Martin KA, Abdi F, et al. Conserved gene clusters in bacterial genomes provide further support for the primacy of RNA. J Mol Evol 1997; 45: pp. 467-72.
28. Tamames J, Casari G, Ouzounis C, Valencia A. Conserved clusters of functionally related genes in two bacterial genomes. J Mol Evol 1997; 44: pp. 66-73.
29. Watanabe H, Mori H, Itoh T, Gojobori T. Genome plasticity as a paradigm of eubacteria evolution. J Mol Evol 1997; 44: pp. S57-64.
30. Pellegrini M, Marcotte EM, Thompson MJ, et al. Assigning protein functions by comparative genome analysis: protein phylogenetic profiles. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1999; 96: pp. 4285-88.
31. Pazos F, Valencia A. Similarity of phylogenetic trees as indicator of protein-protein interaction. Protein Eng 2001; 14: pp. 609-14.
32. Bhardwaj N, Lu H. Correlation between gene expression profiles and protein-protein interactions within and across genomes. Bioinformatics 2005; 21: pp. 2730-38.
33. Enright AJ, Iliopoulos I, Kyrpides NC, Ouzounis CA. Protein interaction maps for complete genomes based on gene fusion events. Nature 1999; 402: pp. 86-90.
34. Altschul SF, Gish W, Miller W, et al. Basic local alignment search tool. J Mol Biol 1990; 215: pp. 403-10.
35. Marcotte EM, Pellegrini M, Ng HL, et al. Detecting protein function and protein-protein interactions from genome sequences. Science 1999; 285: pp. 751-53.
36. Eisenberg D, Marcotte EM, Xenarios I, Yeates TO. Protein function in the post-genomic era. Nature 2000; 405: pp. 823-26.
37. Sato T, Yamanishi Y, Kanehisa M, Toh H. The inference of protein-protein interactions by co-evolutionary analysis is improved by excluding the information about the phylogenetic relationships. Bioinformatics 2005; 21: pp. 3482-89.
38. Sun J, Xu J, Liu Z, et al. Refined phylogenetic profiles method for predicting protein-protein interactions. Bioinformatics 2005; 21: pp. 3409-415.
39. Gertz J, Elfond G, Shustrova A, et al. Inferring protein interactions from phylogenetic distance matrices. Bioinformatics 2003; 19: pp. 2039-45.
40. Craig RA, Liao L. Improving protein protein interaction prediction based on phylogenetic information using a least-squares support vector machine. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 2007; 1115: pp. 154-67.
41. Pazos F, Juan D, Izarzugaza JMG, et al. Prediction of protein interaction based on similarity of phylogenetic trees. Methods Mol Biol 2008; 484: pp. 523-35.
42. Price MN, Dehal PS, Arkin AP. FastTree: Computing large minimum evolution trees with profiles instead of a distance matrix. Mol Biol Evol 2009; 26: pp. 1641-50.
43. Matthews LR, Vaglio P, Reboul J, et al. Identification of Potential Interaction Networks Using Sequence-Based Searches for Conserved Protein-Protein Interactions or -Interologs. Genome Res 2001; 11: pp. 2120-26.
44. Yu H, Luscombe NM, Lu HX, et al. Annotation transfer between genomes: protein-protein interologs and protein-DNA regulogs. Genome Res 2004; 14: pp. 1107-18.
45. Altschul SF, Madden TL, Schäffer AA, et al. Gapped BLAST and PSI-BLAST: a new generation of protein database search programs. Nucleic Acids Res 1997; 25: pp. 3389-402.
46. Lee S, Chan C, Tsai C, et al. Ortholog-based protein-protein interaction prediction and its application to inter-species interactions. BMC Bioinformatics 2008; 9: p. S11.
47. Yellaboina S, Dudekula DB, Ko MS. Prediction of evolutionarily conserved interologs in Mus musculus. BMC Genomics 2008; 9: p. 465.
48. Edgar R, Domrachev M, Lash AE. Gene Expression Omnibus: NCBI gene expression and hybridization array data repository. Nucleic Acids Res 2002; 30: pp. 207-10.
49. Pruitt KD, Maglott DR. RefSeq and LocusLink: NCBI gene-centered resources. Nucleic cids Res 2001; 29: pp. 137-40.
50. Li L, Stoeckert CJ, Roos DS. OrthoMCL: identification of ortholog groups for eukaryotic genomes. Genome Res 2003; 13: pp. 2178-89.
51. Sprinzak E, Margalit H. Correlated sequence-signatures as markers of protein-protein interaction. J Mol Biol 2001; 311: pp. 681-92.
52. Martin S, Roe D, Faulon J. Predicting protein-protein interactions using signature products. Bioinformatics 2005; 21: pp. 218-26.
53. Bock JR, Gough DA. Predicting protein--protein interactions from primary structure. Bioinformatics 2001; 17: pp. 455-60.
54. Wojcik J, Schächter V. Protein-protein interaction map inference using interacting domain profile pairs. Bioinformatics 2001; 17(Suppl. 1): pp. S296-305.
55. Szilágyi A, Grimm V, Arakaki AK, Skolnick J. Prediction of physical protein-protein interactions. Phys Biol 2005; 2: pp. S1-16.
56. Smith GR, Sternberg MJE. Prediction of protein-protein interactions by docking methods. Curr Opinion Struct Biol 2002; 12: pp. 28-35.
57. Decanniere K, Transue TR, Desmyter A, et al. Degenerate interfaces in antigen-antibody complexes. J Mol Biol 2001; 313: pp. 473-78.
58. Moont G, Gabb HA, Sternberg MJ. Use of pair potentials across protein interfaces in screening predicted docked complexes. Proteins 1999; 35: pp. 364-73.
59. Glaser F, Steinberg DM, Vakser IA, Ben-Tal N. Residue frequencies and pairing preferences at protein-protein interfaces. Proteins 2001; 43: pp. 89-102.
60. Muegge I, Martin YC. A general and fast scoring function for protein-ligand interactions: a simplified potential approach. J Med Chem 1999; 42: pp. 791-804.
61. Norel R, Sheinerman F, Petrey D, Honig B. Electrostatic contributions to protein-protein interactions: Fast energetic filters for docking and their physical basis. Protein Sci A Pub Protein Soc 2001; 10: pp. 2147-61.
62. Gardiner EJ, Willett P, Artymiuk PJ. Graph-theoretic techniques for macromolecular docking. J Chem Inform Comput Sci 2000; 40: pp. 273-79.
63. Jackson RM, Gabb HA, Sternberg MJ. Rapid refinement of protein interfaces incorporating solvation: application to the docking problem. J Mol Biol 1998; 276: pp. 265-85.
64. Claussen H, Buning C, Rarey M, Lengauer T. FlexE: efficient molecular docking considering protein structure variations. J Mol Biol 2001; 308: pp. 377-95.
65. Ewing TJ, Makino S, Skillman AG, Kuntz ID. DOCK 4.0: search strategies for automated molecular docking of flexible molecule databases. J Computer-Aided Mol Design 2001; 15: pp. 411-28.
66. Jones G, Willett P, Glen RC, et al. Development and validation of a genetic algorithm for flexible docking. J Mol Biol 1997; 267: pp. 727-48.
67. Edwards AM, Kus B, Jansen R, et al. Bridging structural biology and genomics: assessing protein interaction data with known complexes. Trends Genetics: TIG 2002; 18: pp. 529-36.
68. Aytuna AS, Gursoy A, Keskin O. Prediction of protein-protein interactions by combining structure and sequence conservation in protein interfaces. Bioinformatics 2005; 21: pp. 2850 -55.
69. Aloy P, Böttcher B, Ceulemans H, et al. Structure-based assembly of protein complexes in yeast. Science 2004; 303: pp. 2026-29.
70. Jefferson ER, Walsh TP, Roberts TJ, Barton GJ. SNAPPI-DB: a database and API of Structures, iNterfaces and Alignments for Protein-Protein Interactions. Nucleic Acids Res 2007; 35: pp. D580-89.
71. Rual J, Venkatesan K, Hao T, et al. Towards a proteome-scale map of the human protein-protein interaction network. Nature 2005; 437: pp. 1173-78.
72. Goldberg DS, Roth FP. Assessing experimentally derived interactions in a small world. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2003; 100: pp. 4372-76.
73. Saito R, Suzuki H, Hayashizaki Y. Interaction generality, a measurement to assess the reliability of a protein-protein interaction. Nucleic Acids Res 2002; 30: pp. 1163-68.
74. Saito R, Suzuki H, Hayashizaki Y. Construction of reliable protein-protein interaction etworks with a new interaction generality measure. Bioinformatics 2003; 19: pp. 756-63.
75. Chen J, Hsu W, Lee ML, Ng S. Increasing confidence of protein interactomes using network topological metrics. Bioinformatics 2006; 22: pp. 1998-2004.
76. Chen J, Hsu W, Lee ML, Ng S. NeMoFinder. Proceedings of the 12th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining - KDD 2006; p. 106.
77. Yu H, Paccanaro A, Trifonov V, Gerstein M. Predicting interactions in protein networks by completing defective cliques. Bioinformatics 2006; 22: pp. 823-29.
78. Chen J, Chua HN, Hsu W, et al. Increasing confidence of protein-protein interactomes. enome Informatics: International Conference on Genome Informatics 2006; 17(2): pp. 284-97.
79. Pellegrini M, Haynor D, Johnson JM. Protein interaction networks. Expert Rev Proteomics 2004; 1: pp. 239-49.
80. Jonsson PF, Cavanna T, Zicha D, Bates PA. Cluster analysis of networks generated through homology: automatic identification of important protein communities involved in cancer metastasis. BMC Bioinformatics 2006; 7: p. 2.
81. Jansen R, Yu H, Greenbaum D, et al. A Bayesian networks approach for predicting protein-protein interactions from genomic data. Science 2003; 302: pp. 449-453.
82. Mott R, Schultz J, Bork P, Ponting CP. Predicting protein cellular localization using a domain projection method. Genome Res 2002; 12: pp. 1168-74.
83. Scott MS, Thomas DY, Hallett MT. Predicting subcellular localization via protein motif co-occurrence. Genome Res 2004; 14: pp. 1957-66.
84. Pierleoni A, Martelli PL, Fariselli P, Casadio R. BaCelLo: a balanced subcellular localization predictor. Bioinformatics 2006; 22: pp. e408-16.
85. Guda C, Subramaniam S. TARGET: a new method for predicting protein subcellular localization in eukaryotes. Bioinformatics 2005; 21: pp. 3963-69.
86. Lu Z, Szafron D, Greiner R, et al. Predicting subcellular localization of proteins using machine-learned classifiers. Bioinformatics 2004; 20: pp. 547-56.
87. Hua S, Sun Z. Support vector machine approach for protein subcellular localization prediction. Bioinformatics 2001; 17: pp. 721-28.
88. Scott MS, Barton GJ. Probabilistic prediction and ranking of human protein-protein interactions. BMC Bioinformatics 2007; 8: p. 239.
89. Ramani AK, Bunescu RC, Mooney RJ, Marcotte EM. Consolidating the set of known human protein-protein interactions in preparation for large-scale mapping of the human interactome. Genome Biol 2005; 6: p. R40.
90. Mann M, Jensen ON. Proteomic analysis of post-translational modifications. Nat Biotechnol 2003; 21: pp. 255-61.
91. Bode AM, Dong Z. Post-translational modification of p53 in tumorigenesis. Nat Rev Cancer 2004; 4: pp. 793-805.
92. Wu CH, Apweiler R, Bairoch A, et al. The Universal Protein Resource (UniProt): an expanding universe of protein information. Nucleic Acids Res 2006; 34: pp. D187-91.
93. Valencia A, Pazos F. Computational methods for the prediction of protein interactions. Curr Opinion Struct Biol 2002; 12: pp. 368-73.
94. Yu J, Fotouhi F. Computational Approaches for Predicting Protein- Protein Interactions: A Survey. J Med Syst 2006; 30: pp. 39-44.
95. Singh GP, Ganapathi M, Dash D. Role of intrinsic disorder in transient interactions of hub proteins. Proteins 2007; 66: pp. 761-65.
96. Peng K, Radivojac P, Vucetic S, et al. Length-dependent prediction of protein intrinsic disorder. BMC Bioinformatics 2006; 7: p. 208.
97. Howson C, Urbach P. Scientific Reasoning: The Bayesian Approach, Open Court Publishing Company, 1993.
98. Von Mering C, Krause R, Snel B, et al. Comparative assessment of large-scale data sets of protein-protein interactions. Nature 2002; 417: pp. 399-403.
99. Browne F, Zheng H, Wang H, Azuaje F. An Integrative Bayesian Approach to Supporting the Prediction of Protein-Protein Interactions: A Case Study in Human Heart Failure. Intl J Biol Life Sci 2009; 5(4): pp. 178-84.
100. Haykin S. Neural Networks: A Comprehensive Foundation, Prentice Hall, 1998.
101. Zang G. Neural Networks for Classification: A Survey. IEEE Trancactions on systems, man, and cybernetics-Part C: Applications and reviews 2000; 30(4): pp. 451-62.
102. Eom J, Zhang B. Prediction of Protein Interaction with Neural Network-Based Feature Association Rule Mining. In Proceedings of the 13th international conference on Neural information processing - Volume Part 3 2006.
103. Chen X, Liu M, Hu Y. Integrative neural network approach for protein interaction prediction from heterogeneous data. Lecture Notes in Computer Science: Advanced Data Mining and Applications 2008; 5139: pp. 532-39.
104. Lewis DP, Jebara T, Noble WS. Support vector machine learning from heterogeneous data: an empirical analysis using protein sequence and structure. Bioinformatics 2006; 22: pp. 2753-60.
105. Byvatov E, Schneider G. Support vector machine applications in bioinformatics. Appl Bioinform 2003; 2: pp. 67-77.
106. Hopp TP, Woods KR. Prediction of protein antigenic determinants from amino acid sequences. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1981; 78: pp. 3824-28.
107. Conte LL, Chothia C, Janin J. The atomic structure of protein-protein recognition sites. Mol Biol 1999; 285: pp. 2177-98.
108. Bock JR, Gough DA. Whole-proteome interaction mining. Bioinformatics 2003; 19: pp. 125-34.
109. Guo Y, Yu L, Wen Z, Li M. Using support vector machine combined with auto covariance to predict protein-protein interactions from protein sequences. Nucleic Acids Res 2008; 36: pp. 3025-30.
110. Ben-Hur A, Noble WS. Choosing negative examples for the prediction of protein-protein interactions. BMC Bioinformatics 2006; 7(Suppl. 1): p. S2.
111. Leslie C, Eskin E, Noble WS. The spectrum kernel: a string kernel for SVM protein classification. Pacific Symp Biocomput 2002; pp. 564-75.
112. Ben-Hur A, Brutlag D. Remote homology detection: a motif based approach. Bioinformatics 2003; 19(Suppl. 1): pp. i26-33.
113. Donaldson I, Martin J, de Bruijn B, et al. PreBIND and Textomy - mining the biomedical literature for protein-protein interactions using a support vector machine. BMC Bioinformatics 2003; 4: p. 11.
114. Soong T, Wrzeszczynski KO, Rost B. Physical protein-protein interactions predicted from microarrays. Bioinformatics 2008; 24: pp. 2608-14.
115. Gomez SM, Noble WS, Rzhetsky A. Learning to predict protein- protein interactions from protein sequences. Bioinformatics 2003; 19: pp. 1875 -81.
116. Breiman L. Random forests. Machine Learning J 2001; 45: pp. 5-32.
117. Liu Y, Kim I, Hao H. Protein interaction predictions from diverse sources. Drug Discov Today 2008; 13: pp. 409-16.
118. Qi Y, Bar-Joseph Z, Klein-Seetharaman J. Evaluation of different biological data and computational classification methods for use in protein interaction prediction. Proteins 2006; 63: pp. 490-500.
119. Qi Y, Klein-Seetharaman J, Bar-Joseph Z. Random forest similarity for protein-protein interaction prediction from multiple sources. Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing. Pacific Symp Biocomput 2005; pp. 531-42.
120. Chen X, Liu M. Prediction of protein-protein interactions using random decision forest framework. Bioinformatics 2005; 21: pp. 4394-400.
121. Sikic M, Tomic S, Vlahovicek K. Prediction of protein-protein interaction sites in sequences and 3D structures by random forests. PLoS Comput Biol 2009; 5: p. e1000278.
122. Strobl C, Boulesteix A, Zeileis A, Hothorn T. Bias in random forest variable importance measures: Illustrations, sources and a solution. BMC Bioinformatics 2007; 8: p. 25.
123. th International Conference on Information Technology and Applications in Biomedicine 2010.
124. Oyama T, Kitano K, Satou K, Ito T. Extraction of knowledge on protein--protein interaction by association rule discovery. Bioinformatics 2002; 18: pp. 705-14.
125. Ge H, Liu Z, Church GM, Vidal M. Correlation between transcriptome and interactome mapping data from Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Nat Genet 2001; 29: pp. 482-86.
126. Jansen R, Greenbaum D, Gerstein M. Relating Whole-Genome Expression Data with Protein-Protein Interactions. Genome Res 2002; 12: pp. 37-46.
127. Kemmeren P, van Berkum NL, Vilo J, et al. Protein interaction verification and functional annotation by integrated analysis of genome-scale data. Mol Cell 2002; 9: pp. 1133-43.
128. Qi Y, Klein-Seetharaman J, Bar-Joseph Z. A mixture of feature experts approach for protein-protein interaction prediction. BMC Bioinformatics 2007; 8: p. S6.
129. Chawla N, Bowyer K, Hall L, Kegelmeyer P. SMOTE: Synthetic Minority Over-sampling Technique. J Artif Intel Res 2002; 16: pp. 321-57.
130. Weiss G. Mining with rarity: a unifying framework. ACM SIGKDD Explorations Newsletter - Special issue on learning from imbalanced datasets 2004; 6: pp. 7-19.
131. Mavroudi S, Katsanos P, Papadimitriou S, Likothanassis S. Transparent classification process of bioinformatics data with an approximated support vector fuzzy inference system. In Proceedings of the International Special Topic Conference on Information Technology in Biomedicine (ITAB) 2006.