Protein bipartivity and essentiality in the yeast protein-protein interaction network.

Protein-protein interaction networks (PINs) are structured by means of a few highly connected proteins linked to a large number of less-connected ones. Essential proteins have been found to be more abundant among these highly connected proteins. Here we demonstrate that the likelihood that removal of a protein in a PIN will prove lethal to yeast correlates with the lack of bipartivity of the protein. A protein is bipartite if it can be partitioned in such a way that there are two groups of proteins with intergroup, but not intragroup, interactions. The abundance of essential proteins found among the least bipartite proteins clearly exceeds that found among the most connected ones. For instance, among the top 50 proteins ranked by their lack of bipartivity 62% are essential proteins. However, this percentage is only 38% for proteins ranked according to their number of interactions. Protein bipartivity also surpasses another 5 measures of protein centrality in yeast PIN in identifying essential proteins and doubles the number of essential proteins selected at random. We propose a possible mechanism for the evolution of essential proteins in yeast PIN based on the duplication-divergence scheme. We conclude that a replica protein evolving from a nonbipartite target will also be nonbipartite with high probability. Consequently, these new replicas evolving from nonbipartite (essential) targets will with high probability be essential.

[1]  Dr. Susumu Ohno.  Evolution by Gene Duplication , 1970, Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

[2]  P. Bonacich.  Factoring and weighting approaches to status scores and clique identification , 1972 .

[3]  Leonard M. Freeman,et al.  A set of measures of centrality based upon betweenness , 1977 .

[4]  L. Freeman.  Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification , 1978 .

[5]  P. Bonacich.  Power and Centrality: A Family of Measures , 1987, American Journal of Sociology.

[6]  M. Zelen,et al.  Rethinking centrality: Methods and examples☆ , 1989 .

[7]  Vladimir Batagelj,et al.  Centrality in Social Networks , 1993 .

[8]  Duncan J. Watts,et al.  Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’ networks , 1998, Nature.

[9]  Albert,et al.  Emergence of scaling in random networks , 1999, Science.

[10]  J. Hopfield,et al.  From molecular to modular cell biology , 1999, Nature.

[11]  Laurence D. Hurst,et al.  Do essential genes evolve slowly? , 1999, Current Biology.

[12]  James R. Knight,et al.  A comprehensive analysis of protein–protein interactions in Saccharomyces cerevisiae , 2000, Nature.

[13]  M. Mann,et al.  Proteomics to study genes and genomes , 2000, Nature.

[14]  A. Barabasi,et al.  Lethality and centrality in protein networks , 2001, Nature.

[15]  A. E. Hirsh,et al.  Protein dispensability and rate of evolution , 2001, Nature.

[16]  R. Ozawa,et al.  A comprehensive two-hybrid analysis to explore the yeast protein interactome , 2001, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[17]  A. Wagner.  The yeast protein interaction network evolves rapidly and contains few redundant duplicate genes. , 2001, Molecular biology and evolution.

[18]  B. Snel,et al.  The identification of functional modules from the genomic association of genes , 2002, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[19]  A. Vespignani,et al.  Modeling of Protein Interaction Networks , 2001, Complexus.

[20]  H. Bussey,et al.  Comprehensive essential gene identification as a platform for novel anti-infective drug discovery. , 2002, Current pharmaceutical design.

[21]  S. Shen-Orr,et al.  Network motifs: simple building blocks of complex networks. , 2002, Science.

[22]  B. Snel,et al.  Comparative assessment of large-scale data sets of protein–protein interactions , 2002, Nature.

[23]  A. Barabasi,et al.  Hierarchical Organization of Modularity in Metabolic Networks , 2002, Science.

[24]  Albert-László Barabási,et al.  Life's Complexity Pyramid , 2002, Science.

[25]  Minghua Deng,et al.  Inferring Domain–Domain Interactions From Protein–Protein Interactions , 2002 .

[26]  Laurence D. Hurst,et al.  Genomic function (communication arising): Rate of evolution and gene dispensability , 2003, Nature.

[27]  Cristian I. Castillo-Davis,et al.  Conservation, relocation and duplication in genome evolution. , 2003, Trends in genetics : TIG.

[28]  D. Bu,et al.  Topological structure analysis of the protein-protein interaction network in budding yeast. , 2003, Nucleic acids research.

[29]  Michael Lappe,et al.  From gene networks to gene function. , 2003, Genome research.

[30]  Alessandro Vespignani,et al.  Global protein function prediction from protein-protein interaction networks , 2003, Nature Biotechnology.

[31]  Alexander Rives,et al.  Modular organization of cellular networks , 2003, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[32]  R. Solé,et al.  Evolving protein interaction networks through gene duplication. , 2003, Journal of theoretical biology.

[33]  M. Gerstein,et al.  Genomic analysis of essentiality within protein networks. , 2004, Trends in genetics : TIG.

[34]  Erich Bornberg-Bauer,et al.  Convergent evolution of gene networks by single‐gene duplications in higher eukaryotes , 2004, EMBO reports.

[35]  R. Milo,et al.  Network motifs in integrated cellular networks of transcription-regulation and protein-protein interaction. , 2004, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[36]  Anton J. Enright,et al.  Detection of functional modules from protein interaction networks , 2003, Proteins.

[37]  S. Wuchty.  Evolution and topology in the yeast protein interaction network. , 2004, Genome research.

[38]  Christoph Adami,et al.  Evolutionary rate depends on number of protein-protein interactions independently of gene expression level: Response , 2004, BMC Evolutionary Biology.

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

[40]  B. Snel,et al.  The yeast coexpression network has a small‐world, scale‐free architecture and can be explained by a simple model , 2004, EMBO reports.

[41]  J. A. Rodríguez-Velázquez,et al.  Spectral measures of bipartivity in complex networks. , 2005, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[42]  S. L. Wong,et al.  Motifs, themes and thematic maps of an integrated Saccharomyces cerevisiae interaction network , 2005, Journal of biology.

[43]  I. Ispolatov,et al.  Cliques and duplication–divergence network growth , 2005, New journal of physics.

[44]  P. Uetz,et al.  From protein networks to biological systems , 2005, FEBS letters.

[45]  T. Nikolskaya,et al.  Biological networks and analysis of experimental data in drug discovery. , 2005, Drug discovery today.

[46]  F. Odds.  Genomics, molecular targets and the discovery of antifungal drugs. , 2005, Revista iberoamericana de micologia.

[47]  J. A. Rodríguez-Velázquez,et al.  Subgraph centrality in complex networks. , 2005, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[48]  P. Bork,et al.  Identification and analysis of evolutionarily cohesive functional modules in protein networks. , 2006, Genome research.

[49]  Ernesto Estrada.  Virtual identification of essential proteins within the protein interaction network of yeast , 2005, Proteomics.

[50]  Connectivity and expression in protein networks: proteins in a complex are uniformly expressed. , 2005, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.