The importance of age and high degree, in protein-protein interaction networks

Journal of Computational Biology

Volumn 19, Issue 6, 2012, Pages 785-795

  Rito, Tiago ^a   Deane, Charlotte M ^a   Reinert, Gesine ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

degree distribution; gene duplication models; graph patterns; network motifs; protein age distribution; protein protein interactions

Indexed keywords

SACCHAROMYCES CEREVISIAE PROTEIN;

ARTICLE; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; CLASSIFICATION; GENE DUPLICATION; GENETICS; PROTEIN ANALYSIS; PROTEIN PROTEIN INTERACTION; SACCHAROMYCES CEREVISIAE;

GENE DUPLICATION; MODELS, GENETIC; PROTEIN INTERACTION MAPPING; PROTEIN INTERACTION MAPS; SACCHAROMYCES CEREVISIAE; SACCHAROMYCES CEREVISIAE PROTEINS;

EID: 84862526279     PISSN: 10665277     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1089/cmb.2012.0054     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Ali, W., and Deane, C.M. 2010. Evolutionary analysis reveals low coverage as the major challenge for protein interaction network alignment. Mol. Biosyst. 6, 2296-2304.
2. Artzy-Randrup, Y., Fleishman, S.J., Ben-Tal, N., et al. 2004. Comment on "network motifs: simple building blocks of complex networks" and "superfamilies of evolved and designed networks." Science 305, 1107.
3. Bebek, G., Berenbrink, P., Cooper, C., et al. 2006. The degree distribution of the generalized duplication model. Theor. Comput. Sci. 369, 239-249.
4. Bonetta, L. 2010. Protein-protein interactions: interactome under construction. Nature 468, 851-854.
5. Chen, P.Y., Deane, C.M., and Reinert, G. 2008. Predicting and validating protein interactions using network structure. PLoS Comput. Biol. 4, e1000118.
6. Cox, D.R. 2006. Principles of Statistical Inference. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
7. Deane, C.M., Salwiński, q., Xenarios, I., et al. 2002. Protein interactions. Mol. Cell. Proteom. 1, 349-356.
8. Gibson T.A., and Goldberg, D.S. 2011. Improving evolutionary models of protein interaction networks. Bioinformatics 27, 376-382.
9. Hormozdiari, F., Berenbrink, P., Przulj, N., et al. 2007. Not all scale-free networks are born equal: the role of the seed graph in PPI network evolution. PLoS Comput. Biol. 3, e118.
10. Huang H., and Bader, J.S. 2009. Precision and recall estimates for two-hybrid screens. Bioinformatics 25, 372-378.
11. Jensen, L.J., and Bork, P. 2008. Not comparable, but complementary. Science 322, 56-57.
12. Khanin, R., and Wit, E. 2006. How scale-free are biological networks. J. Comput. Biol. 13, 810-818.
13. Kim, W.K., and Marcotte, E.M. 2008. Age-dependent evolution of the yeast protein interaction network suggests a limited role of gene duplication and divergence. PLoS Comput. Biol. 4, e1000232.
14. Klemm, K., and Bornholdt, S. 2005. Topology of biological networks and reliability of information processing. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 102, 18414-18419.
15. Lander, E.S., and Waterman, M.S., 1995. The secrets of life, 1-24. In Lander, E.S., and Waterman, M.S., eds. Calculating the Secrets of Life: Applications of the Mathematical Sciences in Molecular Biology. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
16. Lewis, A.C.F., Jones, N.J., Porter, M.A., et al. 2010. The function of communities in protein interaction networks at multiple scales. BMC Syst. Biol. 4:100.
17. Liu, Z., Liu, Q., Sun, H., et al. 2011. Evidence for the additions of clustered interacting nodes during the evolution of protein interaction networks from network motifs. BMC Evol. Biol. 11:133.
18. Maslov, S., and Sneppen, K., 2002. Specificity and stability in topology of protein networks. Science 296, 910-913.
19. Milo, R., Shen-Orr, S., Itzkovitz, S., et al. 2002. Network motifs: simple building blocks of complex networks. Science 298, 824-827.
20. Ö stlund, G., Schmitt, T., Forslund, K., et al. 2010. Inparanoid 7: new algorithms and tools for eukaryotic orthology analysis. Nucleic Acids Res. 38, D196-D203.
21. Qin, H., Lu, H.H.S., Wu, W.B., et al. 2003. Evolution of the yeast protein interaction network. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 100, 12820-12824.
22. Rito, T., Wang, Z., Deane, C.M., et al. 2010. How threshold behaviour affects the use of subgraphs for network comparison. Bioinformatics 26, i611-i617.
23. Salwinski, L., Miller, C.S., Smith, A.J., et al. The database of interacting proteins: 2004 update. Nucleic Acids Res. 32, D449-D451.
24. Sambourg L., and Thierry-Mieg, N. 2010. New insights into protein-protein interaction data lead to increased estimates of the S. cerevisiae interactome size. BMC Bioinform. 11:605.
25. Sprinzak, E., Sattath, S., and Margalit, H. 2003. How reliable are experimental protein-protein interaction data? J. Mol. Biol. 327, 919-923.
26. Tavaré, S. 2004. Ancestral inference in population genetics. Lect. Notes Math. 1837, 1-188.
27. Valente A.X.C.N., and Cusick, M.E. 2006. Yeast protein interactome topology provides frame-work for coordinatedfunctionality. Nucleic Acids Res. 34, 2812-2819.
28. Vespignani, A. 2003. Evolution thinks modular. Nat. Genet. 35, 118-119.
29. Winstanley, H.F., Abeln, S., and Deane, C.M. 2005. How old is your fold? Bioinformatics 21, i449-i458.
30. Wolf, Y.I., Novichkov, P.S., Karev, G.P., et al. 2009. The universal distribution of evolutionary rates of genes and distinct characteristics of eukaryotic genes of different apparent ages. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 106, 7273-7280.
31. Wuchty, S., Oltvai, Z.N., and Barabasi, A.L. 2003. Evolutionary conservation of motif constituents in the yeast protein interaction network. Nat. Genet. 35, 176-179.