New EMBO Member's Review Protein co-evolution, co-adaptation and interactions

Co-evolution has an important function in the evolution of species and it is clearly manifested in certain scenarios such as host–parasite and predator–prey interactions, symbiosis and mutualism. The extrapolation of the concepts and methodologies developed for the study of species co-evolution at the molecular level has prompted the development of a variety of computational methods able to predict protein interactions through the characteristics of co-evolution. Particularly successful have been those methods that predict interactions at the genomic level based on the detection of pairs of protein families with similar evolutionary histories (similarity of phylogenetic trees: mirrortree). Future advances in this field will require a better understanding of the molecular basis of the co-evolution of protein families. Thus, it will be important to decipher the molecular mechanisms underlying the similarity observed in phylogenetic trees of interacting proteins, distinguishing direct specific molecular interactions from other general functional constraints. In particular, it will be important to separate the effects of physical interactions within protein complexes (‘co-adaptation’) from other forces that, in a less specific way, can also create general patterns of co-evolution. The EMBO Journal (2008) 27, 2648–2655. doi:10.1038/ emboj.2008.189; Published online 25 September 2008 Subject Categories: genomic & computational biology

[1]  Matteo Pellegrini,et al.  Prolinks: a database of protein functional linkages derived from coevolution , 2004, Genome Biology.

[2]  M. Sternberg,et al.  Assessing protein co-evolution in the context of the tree of life assists in the prediction of the interactome. , 2005, Journal of molecular biology.

[3]  Shanping Wang,et al.  Rapid Coevolution of the Nematode Sex-Determining Genes fem-3 and tra-2 , 2002, Current Biology.

[4]  Bernard Labedan,et al.  Using quaternary structures to assess the evolutionary history of proteins: the case of the aspartate carbamoyltransferase. , 2003, Molecular biology and evolution.

[5]  Mauricio G Mateu,et al.  Electrostatic repulsion, compensatory mutations, and long-range non-additive effects at the dimerization interface of the HIV capsid protein. , 2005, Journal of molecular biology.

[6]  David Haussler,et al.  Detecting Coevolution in and among Protein Domains , 2007, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[7]  J. Thompson,et al.  The Coevolutionary Process , 1994 .

[8]  J. Lawrence.  Selfish operons and speciation by gene transfer. , 1997, Trends in microbiology.

[9]  C. Sander,et al.  Can three-dimensional contacts in protein structures be predicted by analysis of correlated mutations? , 1994, Protein engineering.

[10]  Bruce Rothschild,et al.  Inferring protein interactions from phylogenetic distance matrices , 2003, Bioinform..

[11]  Raja Jothi,et al.  Co-evolutionary analysis of domains in interacting proteins reveals insights into domain-domain interactions mediating protein-protein interactions. , 2006, Journal of molecular biology.

[12]  Bruce Wallace,et al.  On Coadaptation in Drosophila , 1953, The American Naturalist.

[13]  R. Burton,et al.  Genetic Architecture of Physiological Phenotypes: Empirical Evidence for Coadapted Gene Complexes , 1999 .

[14]  Christine A. Orengo,et al.  Predicting Protein Function with Hierarchical Phylogenetic Profiles: The Gene3D Phylo-Tuner Method Applied to Eukaryotic Genomes , 2007, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[15]  Li Liao,et al.  Phylogenetic tree information aids supervised learning for predicting protein-protein interaction based on distance matrices , 2007, BMC Bioinformatics.

[16]  David L. Robertson,et al.  Specificity in protein interactions and its relationship with sequence diversity and coevolution , 2007, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[17]  Yoshihiro Yamanishi,et al.  The inference of protein-protein interactions by co-evolutionary analysis is improved by excluding the information about the phylogenetic relationships , 2005, Bioinform..

[18]  Edward Susko,et al.  Testing for covarion-like evolution in protein sequences. , 2007, Molecular biology and evolution.

[19]  Zhirong Sun,et al.  Inferring functional linkages between proteins from evolutionary scenarios. , 2006, Journal of molecular biology.

[20]  A. Valencia,et al.  Correlated mutations contain information about protein-protein interaction. , 1997, Journal of molecular biology.

[21]  C. Jeffrey,et al.  Coevolution and Systematics , 1988 .

[22]  Teresa M. Przytycka,et al.  Discovering functional linkages and uncharacterized cellular pathways using phylogenetic profile comparisons: a comprehensive assessment , 2007, BMC Bioinformatics.

[23]  Florencio Pazos,et al.  Prediction of protein interaction based on similarity of phylogenetic trees. , 2008, Methods in molecular biology.

[24]  Shanping Wang,et al.  The TRA‐1 transcription factor binds TRA‐2 to regulate sexual fates in Caenorhabditis elegans , 2001, The EMBO journal.

[25]  W. P. Russ,et al.  Evolutionary information for specifying a protein fold , 2005, Nature.

[26]  J. Dopazo,et al.  The human phylome , 2007, Genome Biology.

[27]  C. Wilke,et al.  A single determinant dominates the rate of yeast protein evolution. , 2006, Molecular biology and evolution.

[28]  D. Frishman,et al.  A domain interaction map based on phylogenetic profiling. , 2004, Journal of molecular biology.

[29]  Benjamin A. Shoemaker,et al.  Deciphering Protein–Protein Interactions. Part II. Computational Methods to Predict Protein and Domain Interaction Partners , 2007, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[30]  H. Wolfson,et al.  Correlated mutations: Advances and limitations. A study on fusion proteins and on the Cohesin‐Dockerin families , 2006, Proteins.

[31]  F. Cohen,et al.  Co-evolution of proteins with their interaction partners. , 2000, Journal of molecular biology.

[32]  Kevin Karplus,et al.  Contact prediction using mutual information and neural nets , 2007, Proteins.

[33]  Zhen Liu,et al.  Refined phylogenetic profiles method for predicting protein-protein interactions , 2005, Bioinform..

[34]  Dan M. Bolser,et al.  Large-scale co-evolution analysis of protein structural interlogues using the global protein structural interactome map (PSIMAP) , 2004, Bioinform..

[35]  Teresa M Przytycka,et al.  Predicting protein domain interactions from coevolution of conserved regions , 2007, Proteins.

[36]  E. Bayer,et al.  Species‐specificity of the cohesin‐dockerin interaction between Clostridium thermocellum and Clostridium cellulolyticum: Prediction of specificity determinants of the dockerin domain , 1997, Proteins.

[37]  S. Sunyaev,et al.  Dobzhansky–Muller incompatibilities in protein evolution , 2002, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[38]  Z. Weng,et al.  Structure, function, and evolution of transient and obligate protein-protein interactions. , 2005, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[39]  R. Aldrich,et al.  Influence of conservation on calculations of amino acid covariance in multiple sequence alignments , 2004, Proteins.

[40]  E. van Nimwegen,et al.  Accurate Prediction of Protein–protein Interactions from Sequence Alignments Using a Bayesian Method , 2022 .

[41]  A. E. Hirsh,et al.  Evolutionary Rate in the Protein Interaction Network , 2002, Science.

[42]  Y. Satta,et al.  Highly divergent sequences of the pollen self‐incompatibility (S) gene in class‐I S haplotypes of Brassica campestris (syn. rapa) L , 2000, FEBS letters.

[43]  D. Eisenberg,et al.  A combined algorithm for genome-wide prediction of protein function , 1999, Nature.

[44]  C. Sander,et al.  Correlated mutations and residue contacts in proteins , 1994, Proteins.

[45]  A. Fersht,et al.  Mutually compensatory mutations during evolution of the tetramerization domain of tumor suppressor p53 lead to impaired hetero-oligomerization. , 1999, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[46]  See-Kiong Ng,et al.  ADVICE: Automated Detection and Validation of Interaction by Co-Evolution , 2004, Nucleic Acids Res..

[47]  Matteo Pellegrini,et al.  An improved method for identifying functionally linked proteins using phylogenetic profiles , 2007, BMC Bioinformatics.

[48]  B. Wallace,et al.  Coadaptation revisited. , 1991, The Journal of heredity.

[49]  K. Makova,et al.  Episodic evolution of growth hormone in primates and emergence of the species specificity of human growth hormone receptor. , 2001, Molecular biology and evolution.

[50]  Boris E. Shakhnovich,et al.  Improving the Precision of the Structure–Function Relationship by Considering Phylogenetic Context , 2005, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[51]  M. Nasrallah,et al.  Allele-Specific Receptor-Ligand Interactions in Brassica Self-Incompatibility , 2001, Science.

[52]  K. J. Fryxell,et al.  The coevolution of gene family trees. , 1996, Trends in genetics : TIG.

[53]  Hirohisa Kishino,et al.  Phylogenetic methodology for detecting protein interactions. , 2006, Molecular biology and evolution.

[54]  Nikolay V Dokholyan,et al.  The Coordinated Evolution of Yeast Proteins Is Constrained by Functional Modularity , 2022 .

[55]  L. V. Valen,et al.  A new evolutionary law , 1973 .

[56]  D. Eisenberg,et al.  Assigning protein functions by comparative genome analysis: protein phylogenetic profiles. , 1999, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[57]  Desiree Tillo,et al.  Codep: Maximizing co‐evolutionary interdependencies to discover interacting proteins , 2006, Proteins.

[58]  Teresa M. Przytycka,et al.  Predicting protein-protein interaction by searching evolutionary tree automorphism space , 2005, ISMB.

[59]  M. Orozco,et al.  Characterization of compensated mutations in terms of structural and physico-chemical properties. , 2007, Journal of molecular biology.

[60]  D. Eisenberg,et al.  Use of Logic Relationships to Decipher Protein Network Organization , 2004, Science.

[61]  Patrik R. Jones,et al.  Allele-Specific Receptor-Ligand Interactions in Brassica Self-Incompatibility , 2022 .

[62]  S. Nadler,et al.  Phylogenetic trees support the coevolution of parasites and their hosts , 1988, Nature.

[63]  Edward M Marcotte,et al.  Discovery of uncharacterized cellular systems by genome-wide analysis of functional linkages , 2003, Nature Biotechnology.

[64]  A. Valencia,et al.  Practical limits of function prediction , 2000, Proteins.

[65]  Arun K. Ramani,et al.  Exploiting the co-evolution of interacting proteins to discover interaction specificity. , 2003, Journal of molecular biology.

[66]  Alfonso Valencia,et al.  TSEMA: interactive prediction of protein pairings between interacting families , 2006, Nucleic Acids Res..

[67]  C. Darwin.  On the Various Contrivances by Which British and Foreign Orchids Are Fertilized by Insects; and on the Good Effects of Intercrossing , 1862, The British and foreign medico-chirurgical review.

[68]  Bruce T Lahn,et al.  Robust signals of coevolution of interacting residues in mammalian proteomes identified by phylogeny-aided structural analysis , 2005, Nature Genetics.

[69]  T. Dobzhansky.  Genetics of the Evolutionary Process , 1970 .

[70]  A. Valencia,et al.  In silico two‐hybrid system for the selection of physically interacting protein pairs , 2002, Proteins.

[71]  W. M. Fitch,et al.  Rate of change of concomitantly variable codons , 2005, Journal of Molecular Evolution.

[72]  B. Snel,et al.  Systematic discovery of analogous enzymes in thiamin biosynthesis , 2003, Nature Biotechnology.

[73]  T. Gaasterland,et al.  Microbial genescapes: phyletic and functional patterns of ORF distribution among prokaryotes. , 1998, Microbial & comparative genomics.

[74]  Chern-Sing Goh,et al.  Co-evolutionary analysis reveals insights into protein-protein interactions. , 2002, Journal of molecular biology.

[75]  Christian von Mering,et al.  STRING: a database of predicted functional associations between proteins , 2003, Nucleic Acids Res..

[76]  L. Mai.  The Delphic boat: What genomes tell us , 2003 .

[77]  T. Dobzhansky,et al.  Genetics of natural populations. XIX. Origin of heterosis through natural selection in populations of Drosophila pseudoobscura. , 1950, Genetics.

[78]  Y. Inagaki,et al.  Testing for differences in rates-across-sites distributions in phylogenetic subtrees. , 2002, Molecular biology and evolution.

[79]  A. E. Hirsh,et al.  Coevolution of gene expression among interacting proteins , 2004, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[80]  A. Valencia,et al.  Computational methods for the prediction of protein interactions. , 2002, Current opinion in structural biology.

[81]  Mark Gerstein,et al.  Analyzing cellular biochemistry in terms of molecular networks. , 2003, Annual review of biochemistry.

[82]  D. Botstein,et al.  Cluster analysis and display of genome-wide expression patterns. , 1998, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[83]  F. Cohen,et al.  Molecular Phylogeny and Evolution of the Plant-Specific Seven-Transmembrane MLO Family , 2002, Journal of Molecular Evolution.

[84]  C. Pál,et al.  Highly expressed genes in yeast evolve slowly. , 2001, Genetics.

[85]  A. Valencia,et al.  Similarity of phylogenetic trees as indicator of protein-protein interaction. , 2001, Protein engineering.

[86]  D. Hartl,et al.  Compensated Deleterious Mutations in Insect Genomes , 2004, Science.

[87]  J. Gonzalez,et al.  Scoring docking models with evolutionary information , 2005, Proteins.

[88]  Yoshihiro Yamanishi,et al.  Partial correlation coefficient between distance matrices as a new indicator of protein-protein interactions , 2006, Bioinform..

[89]  L. V. Valen,et al.  The Red Queen , 1977, The American Naturalist.

[90]  Kang Ying,et al.  Co-evolutionary analysis of insulin/insulin like growth factor 1 signal pathway in vertebrate species. , 2006, Frontiers in bioscience : a journal and virtual library.

[91]  A. Valencia,et al.  High-confidence prediction of global interactomes based on genome-wide coevolutionary networks , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[92]  August B. Smit,et al.  Co-evolution of Ligand-Receptor Pairs in the Vasopressin/Oxytocin Superfamily of Bioactive Peptides (*) , 1996, The Journal of Biological Chemistry.

[93]  Sudhir Kumar,et al.  Gene Expression Intensity Shapes Evolutionary Rates of the Proteins Encoded by the Vertebrate Genome , 2004, Genetics.

[94]  Philip Hinchliffe,et al.  Structure of the Hydrophilic Domain of Respiratory Complex I from Thermus thermophilus , 2006, Science.

[95]  Andrew Meade,et al.  Constrained models of evolution lead to improved prediction of functional linkage from correlated gain and loss of genes , 2007, Bioinform..

[96]  A. Moya,et al.  Learning how to live together: genomic insights into prokaryote–animal symbioses , 2008, Nature Reviews Genetics.

[97]  A. Valencia,et al.  Intrinsic errors in genome annotation. , 2001, Trends in genetics : TIG.

[98]  A. Barabasi,et al.  Network biology: understanding the cell's functional organization , 2004, Nature Reviews Genetics.

[99]  P. Raven,et al.  BUTTERFLIES AND PLANTS: A STUDY IN COEVOLUTION , 1964 .

[100]  A. Valencia,et al.  Improving contact predictions by the combination of correlated mutations and other sources of sequence information. , 1997, Folding & design.