Genomic characterization of perturbation sensitivity

MOTIVATION In determining the function of a gene, it provides much information to observe the changes in a biological system after disruption of the gene of interest through its knockout. Thanks to the microarray technology, it is now possible to profile transcriptional changes of the whole genome, thus differentiating genes that are significantly affected by the knockout. Based on microarray experiments of hundreds of different knockouts, we assigned the so called, 'Perturbation Sensitivity', to the Saccharomyces cerevisiae genome by the frequency of significant changes in the transcript level in hundreds of knockout conditions. Biologically, it reflects the degree of a gene's sensitivity to external perturbations. RESULTS Through gradually enriching gene sets with more perturbation sensitive genes, we show that perturbation sensitive genes are usually not essential and their coding proteins have fewer physical interaction partners and more transcription factors bind to their upstream sequences. And the two extreme gene groups, perturbation sensitive versus perturbation resistant, have mutually exclusive functional annotations.

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

[2]  Stanley Wasserman,et al.  Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications , 1994, Structural analysis in the social sciences.

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

[4]  Dmitrij Frishman,et al.  MIPS: a database for genomes and protein sequences , 2000, Nucleic Acids Res..

[5]  Stefan Wuchty,et al.  Peeling the yeast protein network , 2005, Proteomics.

[6]  Yudong D. He,et al.  Functional Discovery via a Compendium of Expression Profiles , 2000, Cell.

[7]  Rainer Spang,et al.  Non-transcriptional pathway features reconstructed from secondary effects of RNA interference , 2005, Bioinform..

[8]  Jaak Vilo,et al.  Building and analysing genome-wide gene disruption networks , 2002, ECCB.

[9]  Nicola J. Rinaldi,et al.  Transcriptional Regulatory Networks in Saccharomyces cerevisiae , 2002, Science.

[10]  D. Fell,et al.  The small world inside large metabolic networks , 2000, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[11]  H. Mewes,et al.  The FunCat, a functional annotation scheme for systematic classification of proteins from whole genomes. , 2004, Nucleic acids research.

[12]  Massimo Marchiori,et al.  Error and attacktolerance of complex network s , 2004 .

[13]  Albert-László Barabási,et al.  Error and attack tolerance of complex networks , 2000, Nature.

[14]  Nir Friedman,et al.  Inferring subnetworks from perturbed expression profiles , 2001, ISMB.

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

[16]  Ronald W. Davis,et al.  Functional characterization of the S. cerevisiae genome by gene deletion and parallel analysis. , 1999, Science.

[17]  D. Featherstone,et al.  Wrestling with pleiotropy: genomic and topological analysis of the yeast gene expression network. , 2002, BioEssays : news and reviews in molecular, cellular and developmental biology.

[18]  Martin A. Nowak,et al.  Inferring Cellular Networks Using Probabilistic Graphical Models , 2004 .