Biological Process Linkage Networks

Background The traditional approach to studying complex biological networks is based on the identification of interactions between internal components of signaling or metabolic pathways. By comparison, little is known about interactions between higher order biological systems, such as biological pathways and processes. We propose a methodology for gleaning patterns of interactions between biological processes by analyzing protein-protein interactions, transcriptional co-expression and genetic interactions. At the heart of the methodology are the concept of Linked Processes and the resultant network of biological processes, the Process Linkage Network (PLN). Results We construct, catalogue, and analyze different types of PLNs derived from different data sources and different species. When applied to the Gene Ontology, many of the resulting links connect processes that are distant from each other in the hierarchy, even though the connection makes eminent sense biologically. Some others, however, carry an element of surprise and may reflect mechanisms that are unique to the organism under investigation. In this aspect our method complements the link structure between processes inherent in the Gene Ontology, which by its very nature is species-independent. As a practical application of the linkage of processes we demonstrate that it can be effectively used in protein function prediction, having the power to increase both the coverage and the accuracy of predictions, when carefully integrated into prediction methods. Conclusions Our approach constitutes a promising new direction towards understanding the higher levels of organization of the cell as a system which should help current efforts to re-engineer ontologies and improve our ability to predict which proteins are involved in specific biological processes.

[1]  T. Ideker,et al.  Systematic interpretation of genetic interactions using protein networks , 2005, Nature Biotechnology.

[2]  R. Chanet,et al.  Protein interaction mapping: a Drosophila case study. , 2005, Genome research.

[3]  D. Pe’er,et al.  Module networks: identifying regulatory modules and their condition-specific regulators from gene expression data , 2003, Nature Genetics.

[4]  Gene Ontology Consortium.  The Gene Ontology (GO) database and informatics resource , 2003 .

[5]  Tom Misteli,et al.  Potential Roles for Ubiquitin and the Proteasome during Ribosome Biogenesis , 2006, Molecular and Cellular Biology.

[6]  A. Butte,et al.  Discovering functional relationships between RNA expression and chemotherapeutic susceptibility using relevance networks. , 2000, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[7]  Gary D Bader,et al.  A Combined Experimental and Computational Strategy to Define Protein Interaction Networks for Peptide Recognition Modules , 2001, Science.

[8]  Alessandro Vespignani,et al.  Global protein function prediction from protein-protein interaction networks , 2003, Nature Biotechnology.

[9]  F. Robert,et al.  Oxidative Stress-Activated Zinc Cluster Protein Stb5 Has Dual Activator/Repressor Functions Required for Pentose Phosphate Pathway Regulation and NADPH Production , 2006, Molecular and Cellular Biology.

[10]  S. L. Wong,et al.  Combining biological networks to predict genetic interactions. , 2004, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[11]  Arun K. Ramani,et al.  Protein interaction networks from yeast to human. , 2004, Current opinion in structural biology.

[12]  Michael Lichten,et al.  DNA damage response pathway uses histone modification to assemble a double-strand break-specific cohesin domain. , 2004, Molecular cell.

[13]  Lani F. Wu,et al.  Large-scale prediction of Saccharomyces cerevisiae gene function using overlapping transcriptional clusters , 2002, Nature Genetics.

[14]  Kevin Y Yip,et al.  Comparing classical pathways and modern networks: towards the development of an edge ontology. , 2007, Trends in biochemical sciences.

[15]  Thomas Lengauer,et al.  A new measure for functional similarity of gene products based on Gene Ontology , 2006, BMC Bioinformatics.

[16]  Ioannis Xenarios,et al.  DIP, the Database of Interacting Proteins: a research tool for studying cellular networks of protein interactions , 2002, Nucleic Acids Res..

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

[18]  S. Kasif,et al.  Whole-genome annotation by using evidence integration in functional-linkage networks. , 2004, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[19]  G. Church,et al.  Modular epistasis in yeast metabolism , 2005, Nature Genetics.

[20]  Daphne Koller,et al.  Probabilistic discovery of overlapping cellular processes and their regulation , 2004, J. Comput. Biol..

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

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

[23]  Zelmina Lubovac,et al.  Combining functional and topological properties to identify core modules in protein interaction networks , 2006, Proteins.

[24]  H E Stanley,et al.  Classes of small-world networks. , 2000, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[25]  P. Bork,et al.  Dynamic Complex Formation During the Yeast Cell Cycle , 2005, Science.

[26]  Hai Hu,et al.  Assessing semantic similarity measures for the characterization of human regulatory pathways , 2006, Bioinform..

[27]  D. Eisenberg,et al.  A combined algorithm for genome-wide prediction of protein function , 1999, Nature.

[28]  Carole A. Goble,et al.  Investigating Semantic Similarity Measures Across the Gene Ontology: The Relationship Between Sequence and Annotation , 2003, Bioinform..

[29]  B. Snel,et al.  Function prediction and protein networks. , 2003, Current opinion in cell biology.

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

[31]  Joshua M. Stuart,et al.  A Gene-Coexpression Network for Global Discovery of Conserved Genetic Modules , 2003, Science.

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

[33]  Alexander Varshavsky,et al.  The tails of ubiquitin precursors are ribosomal proteins whose fusion to ubiquitin facilitates ribosome biogenesis , 1989, Nature.

[34]  Feng Luo,et al.  Modular organization of protein interaction networks , 2007, Bioinform..

[35]  Igor Jurisica,et al.  Online Predicted Human Interaction Database , 2005, Bioinform..

[36]  Michael Ruogu Zhang,et al.  Comprehensive identification of cell cycle-regulated genes of the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae by microarray hybridization. , 1998, Molecular biology of the cell.

[37]  B. Schwikowski,et al.  A network of protein–protein interactions in yeast , 2000, Nature Biotechnology.

[38]  Dekang Lin,et al.  An Information-Theoretic Definition of Similarity , 1998, ICML.

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

[40]  J. WM. DAWSON.  The Cretaceous Flora of North America , 1884, Nature.

[41]  T. Takagi,et al.  Assessment of prediction accuracy of protein function from protein–protein interaction data , 2001, Yeast.