Interface-Resolved Network of Protein-Protein Interactions

We define an interface-interaction network (IIN) to capture the specificity and competition between protein-protein interactions (PPI). This new type of network represents interactions between individual interfaces used in functional protein binding and thereby contains the detail necessary to describe the competition and cooperation between any pair of binding partners. Here we establish a general framework for the construction of IINs that merges computational structure-based interface assignment with careful curation of available literature. To complement limited structural data, the inclusion of biochemical data is critical for achieving the accuracy and completeness necessary to analyze the specificity and competition between the protein interactions. Firstly, this procedure provides a means to clarify the information content of existing data on purported protein interactions and to remove indirect and spurious interactions. Secondly, the IIN we have constructed here for proteins involved in clathrin-mediated endocytosis (CME) exhibits distinctive topological properties. In contrast to PPI networks with their global and relatively dense connectivity, the fragmentation of the IIN into distinctive network modules suggests that different functional pressures act on the evolution of its topology. Large modules in the IIN are formed by interfaces sharing specificity for certain domain types, such as SH3 domains distributed across different proteins. The shared and distinct specificity of an interface is necessary for effective negative and positive design of highly selective binding targets. Lastly, the organization of detailed structural data in a network format allows one to identify pathways of specific binding interactions and thereby predict effects of mutations at specific surfaces on a protein and of specific binding inhibitors, as we explore in several examples. Overall, the endocytosis IIN is remarkably complex and rich in features masked in the coarser PPI, and collects relevant detail of protein association in a readily interpretable format.

[1]  L. Castagnoli,et al.  Protein Interaction Networks by Proteome Peptide Scanning , 2004, PLoS biology.

[2]  P. Aloy,et al.  Three-dimensional modeling of protein interactions and complexes is going 'omics. , 2011, Current opinion in structural biology.

[3]  Bruce Stillman,et al.  Deciphering Protein Kinase Specificity through Large-scale Analysis of Materials Supplemental Deciphering Protein Kinase Specificity through Large-scale Analysis of Yeast Phosphorylation Site Motifs , 2010 .

[4]  Edward H Egelman,et al.  The CH-domain of calponin does not determine the modes of calponin binding to F-actin. , 2006, Journal of molecular biology.

[5]  Edith D. Wong,et al.  Saccharomyces Genome Database: the genomics resource of budding yeast , 2011, Nucleic Acids Res..

[6]  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.

[7]  Zhaohui S. Qin,et al.  A Global Protein Kinase and Phosphatase Interaction Network in Yeast , 2010, Science.

[8]  Kirill Evlampiev,et al.  Conservation and topology of protein interaction networks under duplication-divergence evolution , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

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

[10]  S. Teichmann,et al.  Domain combinations in archaeal, eubacterial and eukaryotic proteomes. , 2001, Journal of molecular biology.

[11]  Wendell A. Lim,et al.  Optimization of specificity in a cellular protein interaction network by negative selection , 2003, Nature.

[12]  S. Harrison,et al.  Molecular model for a complete clathrin lattice from electron cryomicroscopy , 2004, Nature.

[13]  David G. Drubin,et al.  Determinants of endocytic membrane geometry, stability, and scission , 2011, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[14]  P. Legrain,et al.  Toward a functional analysis of the yeast genome through exhaustive two-hybrid screens , 1997, Nature Genetics.

[15]  Christina Kiel,et al.  Analyzing protein interaction networks using structural information. , 2008, Annual review of biochemistry.

[16]  Gary D. Bader,et al.  Bayesian Modeling of the Yeast SH3 Domain Interactome Predicts Spatiotemporal Dynamics of Endocytosis Proteins , 2009, PLoS biology.

[17]  Kara Dolinski,et al.  The BioGRID Interaction Database: 2011 update , 2010, Nucleic Acids Res..

[18]  Mark E. J. Newman,et al.  Power-Law Distributions in Empirical Data , 2007, SIAM Rev..

[19]  Thomas D. Pollard,et al.  Structural and biochemical characterization of two binding sites for nucleation-promoting factor WASp-VCA on Arp2/3 complex , 2011, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

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

[21]  Sergei Maslov,et al.  Topology of protein interaction network shapes protein abundances and strengths of their functional and nonspecific interactions , 2011, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

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

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

[24]  L. Bergman,et al.  Characterizing the Sphingolipid Signaling Pathway That Remediates Defects Associated with Loss of the Yeast Amphiphysin-like Orthologs, Rvs161p and Rvs167p* , 2005, Journal of Biological Chemistry.

[25]  C. Chothia,et al.  Structural assignments to the Mycoplasma genitalium proteins show extensive gene duplications and domain rearrangements. , 1998, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

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

[27]  Philip M. Kim,et al.  Computational structural analysis of protein interactions and networks , 2012, Proteomics.

[28]  Benjamin A. Shoemaker,et al.  IBIS (Inferred Biomolecular Interaction Server) reports, predicts and integrates multiple types of conserved interactions for proteins , 2011, Nucleic Acids Res..

[29]  R. Nussinov,et al.  Predicting protein-protein interactions on a proteome scale by matching evolutionary and structural similarities at interfaces using PRISM , 2011, Nature Protocols.

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

[31]  Ozlem Keskin,et al.  Towards inferring time dimensionality in protein–protein interaction networks by integrating structures: the p53 example† †This article is part of a Molecular BioSystems themed issue on Computational and Systems Biology. , 2009, Molecular bioSystems.

[32]  Christopher L. McClendon,et al.  Reaching for high-hanging fruit in drug discovery at protein–protein interfaces , 2007, Nature.

[33]  E. Koonin,et al.  The structure of the protein universe and genome evolution , 2002, Nature.

[34]  Scott D. Emr,et al.  Pan1p, Yeast eps15, Functions as a Multivalent Adaptor That Coordinates Protein–Protein Interactions Essential for Endocytosis , 1998, The Journal of cell biology.

[35]  L. Moore,et al.  In vivo analysis of the domains of yeast Rvs167p suggests Rvs167p function is mediated through multiple protein interactions. , 1999, Genetics.

[36]  M. Gerstein,et al.  Global analysis of protein phosphorylation in yeast , 2005, Nature.

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

[38]  D. Drubin,et al.  Clathrin-mediated endocytosis in budding yeast. , 2012, Trends in cell biology.

[39]  Javier Delgado Blanco,et al.  SAPIN: A framework for the structural analysis of protein interaction networks , 2012, Bioinform..

[40]  Laurie E. Grove,et al.  Structural conservation of druggable hot spots in protein–protein interfaces , 2011, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[41]  Comert Kural,et al.  Actin dynamics counteract membrane tension during clathrin-mediated endocytosis , 2011, Nature Cell Biology.

[42]  K. Ayscough,et al.  Yeast Dynamin Vps1 and Amphiphysin Rvs167 Function Together During Endocytosis , 2012, Traffic.

[43]  John A.G. Briggs,et al.  Plasma Membrane Reshaping during Endocytosis Is Revealed by Time-Resolved Electron Tomography , 2012, Cell.

[44]  T. Berg.  Small-molecule inhibitors of protein-protein interactions. , 2008, Current opinion in drug discovery & development.

[45]  Pekka Lappalainen,et al.  Aip1p Interacts with Cofilin to Disassemble Actin Filaments , 1999, The Journal of cell biology.

[46]  C. Landry,et al.  An in Vivo Map of the Yeast Protein Interactome , 2008, Science.

[47]  Haiyuan Yu,et al.  Three-dimensional reconstruction of protein networks provides insight into human genetic disease , 2012, Nature Biotechnology.

[48]  Laurent Blanchoin,et al.  Coronin switches roles in actin disassembly depending on the nucleotide state of actin. , 2009, Molecular cell.

[49]  Juan Fernández-Recio,et al.  Pushing Structural Information into the Yeast Interactome by High-Throughput Protein Docking Experiments , 2009, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[50]  Duilio Cascio,et al.  Regulation of clathrin adaptor function in endocytosis: novel role for the SAM domain , 2010, The EMBO journal.

[51]  T. Pollard,et al.  Crystal Structure of Arp2/3 Complex , 2001, Science.

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

[53]  A. Barabasi,et al.  Functional and topological characterization of protein interaction networks , 2004, Proteomics.

[54]  U. Alon,et al.  Subgraphs and network motifs in geometric networks. , 2004, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[55]  Andrew Chatr-aryamontri,et al.  Structural and functional protein network analyses predict novel signaling functions for rhodopsin , 2011, Molecular systems biology.

[56]  M. Gerstein,et al.  Novel insights through the integration of structural and functional genomics data with protein networks. , 2012, Journal of structural biology.

[57]  Ozlem Keskin,et al.  Similar binding sites and different partners: implications to shared proteins in cellular pathways. , 2007, Structure.

[58]  L. Traub,et al.  Getting in Touch with the Clathrin Terminal Domain , 2012, Traffic.

[59]  Tom M. W. Nye,et al.  Statistical analysis of domains in interacting protein pairs , 2005, Bioinform..

[60]  A. Barabasi,et al.  High-Quality Binary Protein Interaction Map of the Yeast Interactome Network , 2008, Science.

[61]  R. Albert,et al.  The large-scale organization of metabolic networks , 2000, Nature.

[62]  S. Emr,et al.  Yeast epsins contain an essential N‐terminal ENTH domain, bind clathrin and are required for endocytosis , 1999, The EMBO journal.