Uncovering the co-evolutionary network among prokaryotic genes

Motivation: Correlated events of gains and losses enable inference of co-evolution relations. The reconstruction of the co-evolutionary interactions network in prokaryotic species may elucidate functional associations among genes. Results: We developed a novel probabilistic methodology for the detection of co-evolutionary interactions between pairs of genes. Using this method we inferred the co-evolutionary network among 4593 Clusters of Orthologous Genes (COGs). The number of co-evolutionary interactions substantially differed among COGs. Over 40% were found to co-evolve with at least one partner. We partitioned the network of co-evolutionary relations into clusters and uncovered multiple modular assemblies of genes with clearly defined functions. Finally, we measured the extent to which co-evolutionary relations coincide with other cellular relations such as genomic proximity, gene fusion propensity, co-expression, protein–protein interactions and metabolic connections. Our results show that co-evolutionary relations only partially overlap with these other types of networks. Our results suggest that the inferred co-evolutionary network in prokaryotes is highly informative towards revealing functional relations among genes, often showing signals that cannot be extracted from other network types. Availability and implementation: Available under GPL license as open source. Contact: talp@post.tau.ac.il. Supplementary information: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.

[1]  E. Koonin,et al.  Genomics of bacteria and archaea: the emerging dynamic view of the prokaryotic world , 2008, Nucleic acids research.

[2]  U. Gophna,et al.  Reconstructing ancestral gene content by coevolution. , 2010, Genome research.

[3]  Peter Williams,et al.  IMG: the integrated microbial genomes database and comparative analysis system , 2011, Nucleic Acids Res..

[4]  B. Snel,et al.  Gene and context: integrative approaches to genome analysis. , 2000, Advances in protein chemistry.

[5]  Nikolay V Dokholyan,et al.  The Coordinated Evolution of Yeast Proteins Is Constrained by Functional Modularity , 2022 .

[6]  J. Townsend,et al.  Horizontal gene transfer, genome innovation and evolution , 2005, Nature Reviews Microbiology.

[7]  R. Overbeek,et al.  The use of gene clusters to infer functional coupling. , 1999, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[8]  Christine A. Orengo,et al.  Predicting Protein Function with Hierarchical Phylogenetic Profiles: The Gene3D Phylo-Tuner Method Applied to Eukaryotic Genomes , 2007, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[9]  S. Andersson,et al.  Microbial genome evolution: sources of variability. , 2002, Current opinion in microbiology.

[10]  Zhirong Sun,et al.  Inferring functional linkages between proteins from evolutionary scenarios. , 2006, Journal of molecular biology.

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

[12]  Trey Ideker,et al.  Cytoscape 2.8: new features for data integration and network visualization , 2010, Bioinform..

[13]  G. Glazko,et al.  Detection of evolutionarily stable fragments of cellular pathways by hierarchical clustering of phyletic patterns , 2004, Genome Biology.

[14]  J. Felsenstein.  Cases in which Parsimony or Compatibility Methods will be Positively Misleading , 1978 .

[15]  Paramvir S. Dehal,et al.  FastTree 2 – Approximately Maximum-Likelihood Trees for Large Alignments , 2010, PloS one.

[16]  D. Eisenberg,et al.  Detecting protein function and protein-protein interactions from genome sequences. , 1999, Science.

[17]  Sergei L. Kosakovsky Pond,et al.  An Evolutionary-Network Model Reveals Stratified Interactions in the V3 Loop of the HIV-1 Envelope , 2007, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[18]  C. DeLisi,et al.  Genes linked by fusion events are generally of the same functional category: A systematic analysis of 30 microbial genomes , 2001, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[19]  Simon Kasif,et al.  Identification of functional links between genes using phylogenetic profiles , 2003, Bioinform..

[20]  N. Moran,et al.  Tracing the evolution of gene loss in obligate bacterial symbionts. , 2003, Current opinion in microbiology.

[21]  Zhaolei Zhang,et al.  The impact of horizontal gene transfer in shaping operons and protein interaction networks – direct evidence of preferential attachment , 2008, BMC Evolutionary Biology.

[22]  D. Eisenberg,et al.  Assigning protein functions by comparative genome analysis: protein phylogenetic profiles. , 1999, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[23]  S. Böcker,et al.  Comprehensive cluster analysis with Transitivity Clustering , 2011, Nature Protocols.

[24]  Y. Benjamini,et al.  Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing , 1995 .

[25]  Roy D. Welch,et al.  The Entomopathogenic Bacterial Endosymbionts Xenorhabdus and Photorhabdus: Convergent Lifestyles from Divergent Genomes , 2011, PloS one.

[26]  Diego Pol,et al.  Biases in Maximum Likelihood and Parsimony: A Simulation Approach to a 10-Taxon Case , 2001 .

[27]  Susumu Goto,et al.  KEGG for integration and interpretation of large-scale molecular data sets , 2011, Nucleic Acids Res..

[28]  D. Eisenberg,et al.  Localizing proteins in the cell from their phylogenetic profiles. , 2000, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

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

[30]  Jerzy Tiuryn,et al.  Phylogeny-guided interaction mapping in seven eukaryotes , 2009, BMC Bioinformatics.

[31]  D. Lipman,et al.  A genomic perspective on protein families. , 1997, Science.

[32]  R. Nielsen.  Mapping mutations on phylogenies. , 2002, Systematic biology.

[33]  Ziheng Yang.  Phylogenetic analysis using parsimony and likelihood methods , 1996, Journal of Molecular Evolution.

[34]  Tal Pupko,et al.  Inference and Characterization of Horizontally Transferred Gene Families Using Stochastic Mapping , 2009, Molecular biology and evolution.

[35]  Thijs J. G. Ettema,et al.  Modularity in the gain and loss of genes: applications for function prediction. , 2001, Trends in genetics : TIG.

[36]  C. Pál,et al.  Adaptive evolution of bacterial metabolic networks by horizontal gene transfer , 2005, Nature Genetics.

[37]  Tal Pupko,et al.  Inference of Gain and Loss Events from Phyletic Patterns Using Stochastic Mapping and Maximum Parsimony—A Simulation Study , 2011, Genome biology and evolution.

[38]  A. Valencia,et al.  High-confidence prediction of global interactomes based on genome-wide coevolutionary networks , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[39]  A. Valencia,et al.  Computational methods for the prediction of protein interactions. , 2002, Current opinion in structural biology.

[40]  Simon Kasif,et al.  Genomic functional annotation using co-evolution profiles of gene clusters , 2002, Genome Biology.

[41]  Andrew Meade,et al.  Constrained models of evolution lead to improved prediction of functional linkage from correlated gain and loss of genes , 2007, Bioinform..

[42]  Anton J. Enright,et al.  Protein interaction maps for complete genomes based on gene fusion events , 1999, Nature.

[43]  Inna Dubchak,et al.  MicrobesOnline: an integrated portal for comparative and functional genomics , 2009, Nucleic Acids Res..

[44]  Johannes Söding,et al.  The HHpred interactive server for protein homology detection and structure prediction , 2005, Nucleic Acids Res..

[45]  Adi Stern,et al.  A likelihood framework to analyse phyletic patterns , 2008, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[46]  W R Taylor,et al.  Coevolving protein residues: maximum likelihood identification and relationship to structure. , 1999, Journal of molecular biology.

[47]  Damian Szklarczyk,et al.  eggNOG v2.0: extending the evolutionary genealogy of genes with enhanced non-supervised orthologous groups, species and functional annotations , 2009, Nucleic Acids Res..

[48]  Vladimir Batagelj,et al.  Pajek - Analysis and Visualization of Large Networks , 2004, Graph Drawing Software.

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

[50]  Berend Snel,et al.  Coevolution of gene families in prokaryotes. , 2008, Genome research.

[51]  B. Snel,et al.  Conservation of gene order: a fingerprint of proteins that physically interact. , 1998, Trends in biochemical sciences.

[52]  Andrey A Mironov,et al.  A metabolic network in the evolutionary context: multiscale structure and modularity. , 2006, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[53]  K. Konstantinidis,et al.  Trends between gene content and genome size in prokaryotic species with larger genomes. , 2004, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[54]  A. Jean-Marie,et al.  A model-based approach for detecting coevolving positions in a molecule. , 2005, Molecular biology and evolution.

[55]  Damian Szklarczyk,et al.  The STRING database in 2011: functional interaction networks of proteins, globally integrated and scored , 2010, Nucleic Acids Res..

[56]  J. S. Rogers,et al.  Bias in phylogenetic estimation and its relevance to the choice between parsimony and likelihood methods. , 2001, Systematic biology.

[57]  Haim Ashkenazy,et al.  Reducing phylogenetic bias in correlated mutation analysis. , 2010, Protein engineering, design & selection : PEDS.

[58]  Marc A Suchard,et al.  Counting labeled transitions in continuous-time Markov models of evolution , 2007, Journal of mathematical biology.