Specificity and Evolvability in Eukaryotic Protein Interaction Networks

Progress in uncovering the protein interaction networks of several species has led to questions of what underlying principles might govern their organization. Few studies have tried to determine the impact of protein interaction network evolution on the observed physiological differences between species. Using comparative genomics and structural information, we show here that eukaryotic species have rewired their interactomes at a fast rate of approximately 10−5 interactions changed per protein pair, per million years of divergence. For Homo sapiens this corresponds to 103 interactions changed per million years. Additionally we find that the specificity of binding strongly determines the interaction turnover and that different biological processes show significantly different link dynamics. In particular, human proteins involved in immune response, transport, and establishment of localization show signs of positive selection for change of interactions. Our analysis suggests that a small degree of molecular divergence can give rise to important changes at the network level. We propose that the power law distribution observed in protein interaction networks could be partly explained by the cell's requirement for different degrees of protein binding specificity.

[1]  P. Bork,et al.  Functional organization of the yeast proteome by systematic analysis of protein complexes , 2002, Nature.

[2]  Roded Sharan,et al.  PathBLAST: a tool for alignment of protein interaction networks , 2004, Nucleic Acids Res..

[3]  W. Murphy,et al.  Resolution of the Early Placental Mammal Radiation Using Bayesian Phylogenetics , 2001, Science.

[4]  E. Levanon,et al.  Preferential attachment in the protein network evolution. , 2003, Physical review letters.

[5]  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.

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

[7]  Robert D. Finn,et al.  iPfam: visualization of protein?Cprotein interactions in PDB at domain and amino acid resolutions , 2005, Bioinform..

[8]  Antal F. Novak,et al.  networks Græmlin : General and robust alignment of multiple large interaction data , 2006 .

[9]  Gary D Bader,et al.  Systematic identification of protein complexes in Saccharomyces cerevisiae by mass spectrometry , 2002, Nature.

[10]  B. Birren,et al.  Proof and evolutionary analysis of ancient genome duplication in the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae , 2004, Nature.

[11]  Sarah A Teichmann,et al.  Novel specificities emerge by stepwise duplication of functional modules. , 2005, Genome research.

[12]  M. Vidal,et al.  Protein interaction mapping in C. elegans using proteins involved in vulval development. , 2000, Science.

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

[14]  B. Birren,et al.  Sequencing and comparison of yeast species to identify genes and regulatory elements , 2003, Nature.

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

[16]  Hideki Innan,et al.  Very Low Gene Duplication Rate in the Yeast Genome , 2004, Science.

[17]  H. Lehrach,et al.  A Human Protein-Protein Interaction Network: A Resource for Annotating the Proteome , 2005, Cell.

[18]  A. Wagner,et al.  Structure and evolution of protein interaction networks: a statistical model for link dynamics and gene duplications , 2002, BMC Evolutionary Biology.

[19]  M. Lynch,et al.  The evolutionary fate and consequences of duplicate genes. , 2000, Science.

[20]  S. Carroll,et al.  Evolution at Two Levels: On Genes and Form , 2005, PLoS biology.

[21]  Erik L. L. Sonnhammer,et al.  Inparanoid: a comprehensive database of eukaryotic orthologs , 2004, Nucleic Acids Res..

[22]  M. Ashburner,et al.  Gene Ontology: tool for the unification of biology , 2000, Nature Genetics.

[23]  J. Ferrell,et al.  Interlinked Fast and Slow Positive Feedback Loops Drive Reliable Cell Decisions , 2005, Science.

[24]  Victor Kunin,et al.  Functional evolution of the yeast protein interaction network. , 2004, Molecular biology and evolution.

[25]  James R. Knight,et al.  A Protein Interaction Map of Drosophila melanogaster , 2003, Science.

[26]  Wen-Hsiung Li,et al.  Evolution of the yeast protein interaction network , 2003, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

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

[28]  M. Adams,et al.  Inferring Nonneutral Evolution from Human-Chimp-Mouse Orthologous Gene Trios , 2003, Science.

[29]  Sarah A Teichmann,et al.  The origins and evolution of functional modules: lessons from protein complexes , 2006, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[30]  K. H. Wolfe,et al.  Functional Partitioning of Yeast Co-Expression Networks after Genome Duplication , 2006, PLoS biology.

[31]  M. King,et al.  Evolution at two levels in humans and chimpanzees. , 1975, Science.

[32]  Giovanni Cesareni,et al.  Modular protein domains , 2005 .

[33]  C. Pál,et al.  Dosage sensitivity and the evolution of gene families in yeast , 2003, Nature.

[34]  Inna Dubchak,et al.  Comparative genome sequencing of Drosophila pseudoobscura: chromosomal, gene, and cis-element evolution. , 2005, Genome research.

[35]  R. Karp,et al.  From the Cover : Conserved patterns of protein interaction in multiple species , 2005 .

[36]  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.

[37]  Marc W. Kirschner,et al.  Unpolymerized tubulin modulates the level of tubulin mRNAs , 1981, Cell.

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

[39]  Timothy B Sackton,et al.  A Scan for Positively Selected Genes in the Genomes of Humans and Chimpanzees , 2005, PLoS biology.

[40]  Luisa Montecchi Palazzi,et al.  Comparative interactomics , 2005, FEBS letters.

[41]  S. L. Wong,et al.  Towards a proteome-scale map of the human protein–protein interaction network , 2005, Nature.

[42]  M. Lemmon,et al.  Phosphoinositide Recognition Domains , 2003, Traffic.

[43]  K. H. Wolfe,et al.  Fourfold faster rate of genome rearrangement in nematodes than in Drosophila. , 2002, Genome research.

[44]  P. Philippsen,et al.  The Ashbya gossypii Genome as a Tool for Mapping the Ancient Saccharomyces cerevisiae Genome , 2004, Science.

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

[46]  A. Wagner.  How the global structure of protein interaction networks evolves , 2002, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[47]  Hanno Steen,et al.  Development of human protein reference database as an initial platform for approaching systems biology in humans. , 2003, Genome research.

[48]  R. Russell,et al.  Linear motifs: Evolutionary interaction switches , 2005, FEBS letters.

[49]  Ian M. Donaldson,et al.  The Biomolecular Interaction Network Database and related tools 2005 update , 2004, Nucleic Acids Res..

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

[51]  M. Gerstein,et al.  Annotation transfer between genomes: protein-protein interologs and protein-DNA regulogs. , 2004, Genome research.

[52]  Michael B. Yaffe,et al.  Modular Protein Domains: CESARENI:PROTEIN DOMAINS O-BK , 2004 .

[53]  M. Vidal,et al.  Identification of potential interaction networks using sequence-based searches for conserved protein-protein interactions or "interologs". , 2001, Genome research.

[54]  K. N. Chandrika,et al.  Analysis of the human protein interactome and comparison with yeast, worm and fly interaction datasets , 2006, Nature Genetics.

[55]  S. Blair Hedges,et al.  The origin and evolution of model organisms , 2002, Nature Reviews Genetics.

[56]  B. Dujon,et al.  Genome evolution in yeasts , 2004, Nature.

[57]  Cathy H. Wu,et al.  InterPro, progress and status in 2005 , 2004, Nucleic Acids Res..

[58]  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.