Why Do Hubs in the Yeast Protein Interaction Network Tend To Be Essential: Reexamining the Connection between the Network Topology and Essentiality

The centrality-lethality rule, which notes that high-degree nodes in a protein interaction network tend to correspond to proteins that are essential, suggests that the topological prominence of a protein in a protein interaction network may be a good predictor of its biological importance. Even though the correlation between degree and essentiality was confirmed by many independent studies, the reason for this correlation remains illusive. Several hypotheses about putative connections between essentiality of hubs and the topology of protein–protein interaction networks have been proposed, but as we demonstrate, these explanations are not supported by the properties of protein interaction networks. To identify the main topological determinant of essentiality and to provide a biological explanation for the connection between the network topology and essentiality, we performed a rigorous analysis of six variants of the genomewide protein interaction network for Saccharomyces cerevisiae obtained using different techniques. We demonstrated that the majority of hubs are essential due to their involvement in Essential Complex Biological Modules, a group of densely connected proteins with shared biological function that are enriched in essential proteins. Moreover, we rejected two previously proposed explanations for the centrality-lethality rule, one relating the essentiality of hubs to their role in the overall network connectivity and another relying on the recently published essential protein interactions model.

[1]  Mark E. J. Newman A measure of betweenness centrality based on random walks , 2005, Soc. Networks.

[2]  Ulrik Brandes,et al.  Network Analysis: Methodological Foundations , 2010 .

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

[4]  M. Kendall Rank Correlation Methods , 1949 .

[5]  M. Tyers,et al.  Stratus Not Altocumulus: A New View of the Yeast Protein Interaction Network , 2006, PLoS biology.

[6]  Matthew W. Hahn,et al.  Comparative genomics of centrality and essentiality in three eukaryotic protein-interaction networks. , 2005, Molecular biology and evolution.

[7]  C. Deane,et al.  Protein Interactions , 2002, Molecular & Cellular Proteomics.

[8]  Insuk Lee,et al.  A high-accuracy consensus map of yeast protein complexes reveals modular nature of gene essentiality , 2007, BMC Bioinformatics.

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

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

[11]  Matthew A. Hibbs,et al.  Finding function: evaluation methods for functional genomic data , 2006, BMC Genomics.

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

[13]  Sean R. Collins,et al.  Global landscape of protein complexes in the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae , 2006, Nature.

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

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

[16]  R. Forthofer,et al.  Rank Correlation Methods , 1981 .

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

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

[19]  T. Ito,et al.  Toward a protein-protein interaction map of the budding yeast: A comprehensive system to examine two-hybrid interactions in all possible combinations between the yeast proteins. , 2000, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

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

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

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

[23]  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.

[24]  Mike Tyers,et al.  Evolutionary and Physiological Importance of Hub Proteins , 2006, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[25]  Mark Gerstein,et al.  The Importance of Bottlenecks in Protein Networks: Correlation with Gene Essentiality and Expression Dynamics , 2007, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[26]  Michael Hampsey,et al.  Molecular Genetics of the RNA Polymerase II General Transcriptional Machinery , 1998, Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews.

[27]  T. Ideker,et al.  Comprehensive curation and analysis of global interaction networks in Saccharomyces cerevisiae , 2006, Journal of biology.

[28]  P. Bork,et al.  Proteome survey reveals modularity of the yeast cell machinery , 2006, Nature.

[29]  S. Coulomb,et al.  Gene essentiality and the topology of protein interaction networks , 2005, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[30]  Jianzhi Zhang,et al.  Why Do Hubs Tend to Be Essential in Protein Networks? , 2006, PLoS genetics.

[31]  M. Gerstein,et al.  A Bayesian Networks Approach for Predicting Protein-Protein Interactions from Genomic Data , 2003, Science.

[32]  Michael A. Langston,et al.  Combinatorial Genetic Regulatory Network Analysis Tools for High Throughput Transcriptomic Data , 2005, Systems Biology and Regulatory Genomics.

[33]  T. Vicsek,et al.  Uncovering the overlapping community structure of complex networks in nature and society , 2005, Nature.

[34]  Lan V. Zhang,et al.  Evidence for dynamically organized modularity in the yeast protein–protein interaction network , 2004, Nature.

[35]  Sean R. Collins,et al.  Toward a Comprehensive Atlas of the Physical Interactome of Saccharomyces cerevisiae*S , 2007, Molecular & Cellular Proteomics.

[36]  Ronald W. Davis,et al.  Functional profiling of the Saccharomyces cerevisiae genome , 2002, Nature.

[37]  Hunter B. Fraser,et al.  Using protein complexes to predict phenotypic effects of gene mutation , 2007, Genome Biology.

[38]  David Tollervey,et al.  Making ribosomes. , 2002, Current opinion in cell biology.