Topology of protein interaction network shapes protein abundances and strengths of their functional and nonspecific interactions

How do living cells achieve sufficient abundances of functional protein complexes while minimizing promiscuous nonfunctional interactions? Here we study this problem using a first-principle model of the cell whose phenotypic traits are directly determined from its genome through biophysical properties of protein structures and binding interactions in a crowded cellular environment. The model cell includes three independent prototypical pathways, whose topologies of protein–protein interaction (PPI) subnetworks are different, but whose contributions to the cell fitness are equal. Model cells evolve through genotypic mutations and phenotypic protein copy number variations. We found a strong relationship between evolved physical–chemical properties of protein interactions and their abundances due to a “frustration” effect: Strengthening of functional interactions brings about hydrophobic interfaces, which make proteins prone to promiscuous binding. The balancing act is achieved by lowering concentrations of hub proteins while raising solubilities and abundances of functional monomers. On the basis of these principles we generated and analyzed a possible realization of the proteome-wide PPI network in yeast. In this simulation we found that high-throughput affinity capture–mass spectroscopy experiments can detect functional interactions with high fidelity only for high-abundance proteins while missing most interactions for low-abundance proteins.

[1]  Christie S. Chang,et al.  The BioGRID interaction database: 2013 update , 2012, Nucleic Acids Res..

[2]  Eugene I. Shakhnovich,et al.  Enumeration of all compact conformations of copolymers with random sequence of links , 1990 .

[3]  Eric J. Deeds,et al.  Robust protein–protein interactions in crowded cellular environments , 2007, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[4]  D. Frishman,et al.  Protein abundance profiling of the Escherichia coli cytosol , 2008, BMC Genomics.

[5]  Mike Tyers,et al.  BioGRID: a general repository for interaction datasets , 2005, Nucleic Acids Res..

[6]  S. Jones,et al.  Analysis of protein-protein interaction sites using surface patches. , 1997, Journal of molecular biology.

[7]  R. Jernigan,et al.  Residue-residue potentials with a favorable contact pair term and an unfavorable high packing density term, for simulation and threading. , 1996, Journal of molecular biology.

[8]  Eric J. Deeds,et al.  A simple physical model for scaling in protein-protein interaction networks. , 2005, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[9]  Igor N. Berezovsky,et al.  Positive and Negative Design in Stability and Thermal Adaptation of Natural Proteins , 2006, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[10]  J. Janin,et al.  Dissecting subunit interfaces in homodimeric proteins , 2003, Proteins.

[11]  E I Shakhnovich,et al.  Structural similarity enhances interaction propensity of proteins. , 2006, Journal of molecular biology.

[12]  P. Swain,et al.  Stochastic Gene Expression in a Single Cell , 2002, Science.

[13]  J. Janin,et al.  Dissecting protein–protein recognition sites , 2002, Proteins.

[14]  Matthew J. Brauer,et al.  Coordination of growth rate, cell cycle, stress response, and metabolic activity in yeast. , 2008, Molecular biology of the cell.

[15]  Ruth Nussinov,et al.  Energetic determinants of protein binding specificity: Insights into protein interaction networks , 2009, Proteomics.

[16]  J. Janin,et al.  Protein–protein interaction and quaternary structure , 2008, Quarterly Reviews of Biophysics.

[17]  Margaret E. Johnson,et al.  Nonspecific binding limits the number of proteins in a cell and shapes their interaction networks , 2010, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[18]  Sergei Maslov,et al.  Constraints imposed by non-functional protein–protein interactions on gene expression and proteome size , 2008, Molecular systems biology.

[19]  R. Tsien,et al.  Specificity and Stability in Topology of Protein Networks , 2022 .

[20]  N. Wingreen,et al.  NATURE OF DRIVING FORCE FOR PROTEIN FOLDING : A RESULT FROM ANALYZING THE STATISTICAL POTENTIAL , 1995, cond-mat/9512111.

[21]  K. Sneppen,et al.  Specificity and Stability in Topology of Protein Networks , 2002, Science.

[22]  Louis Kang,et al.  Emergence of species in evolutionary “simulated annealing” , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[23]  Ozlem Keskin,et al.  Principles of Protein—Protein Interactions: What Are the Preferred Ways for Proteins to Interact? , 2008 .

[24]  Philip M. Kim,et al.  Relating Three-Dimensional Structures to Protein Networks Provides Evolutionary Insights , 2006, Science.

[25]  Eugene I. Shakhnovich,et al.  Interplay between Pleiotropy and Secondary Selection Determines Rise and Fall of Mutators in Stress Response , 2009, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[26]  Mainak Guharoy,et al.  Conserved residue clusters at protein-protein interfaces and their use in binding site identification , 2010, BMC Bioinformatics.

[27]  E. O’Shea,et al.  Global analysis of protein expression in yeast , 2003, Nature.

[28]  Vladimir N. Uversky,et al.  The roles of intrinsic disorder in protein interaction networks , 2013 .

[29]  Edoardo M. Airoldi,et al.  Predicting Cellular Growth from Gene Expression Signatures , 2009, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[30]  R. Nussinov,et al.  Principles of protein-protein interactions: what are the preferred ways for proteins to interact? , 2008, Chemical reviews.

[31]  I. Ispolatov,et al.  Propagation of large concentration changes in reversible protein-binding networks , 2007, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[32]  Jeffrey W. Smith,et al.  Stochastic Gene Expression in a Single Cell , 2022 .

[33]  Eugene I. Shakhnovich,et al.  A First-Principles Model of Early Evolution: Emergence of Gene Families, Species, and Preferred Protein Folds , 2007, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[34]  Kathryn A. Dowsland,et al.  Simulated Annealing , 1989, Encyclopedia of GIS.