On function homophily of microbial Protein-Protein Interaction Networks

We present a new method for assessing homophily in networks whose vertices have categorical attributes, namely when the vertices of networks come partitioned into classes. We apply this method to ProteinProtein Interaction networks, where vertices correspond to proteins, partitioned according to they functional role, and edges represent potential interactions between proteins. Similarly to other classical and well consolidated approaches, our method compares the relative edge density of the subgraphs induced by each class with the corresponding expected relative edge density under a null model. The novelty of our approach consists in prescribing an endogenous null model, namely, the sample space of the null model is built on the input network itself. This allows us to give exact explicit expression for the z-score of the relative edge density of each class as well as other related statistics. The z-scores directly quantify the statistical significance of the observed homophily via Čebyšëv inequality. The expression of each z-score is entered by the network structure through basic combinatorial invariant such as the number of subgraphs with two spanning edges. Each z-score is computed in O(n) worst-case time for a network with n vertices. This leads to an overall effective computational method for assesing homophily. Theoretical results are then exploited to prove that Protein-Protein Interaction networks networks are significantly homophillous.

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

[2]  M E J Newman,et al.  Modularity and community structure in networks. , 2006, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

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

[4]  Damian Szklarczyk,et al.  The STRING database in 2017: quality-controlled protein–protein association networks, made broadly accessible , 2016, Nucleic Acids Res..

[5]  Jinfeng Zhang,et al.  Bayesian inference of protein-protein interactions from biological literature , 2009, Bioinform..

[6]  Jari Saramäki,et al.  Characterizing the Community Structure of Complex Networks , 2010, PloS one.

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

[8]  Sandhya Rani,et al.  Human Protein Reference Database—2009 update , 2008, Nucleic Acids Res..

[9]  Damian Szklarczyk,et al.  STRING v11: protein–protein association networks with increased coverage, supporting functional discovery in genome-wide experimental datasets , 2018, Nucleic Acids Res..

[10]  Christian von Mering,et al.  STRING: a database of predicted functional associations between proteins , 2003, Nucleic Acids Res..

[11]  Kui Zhang,et al.  Prediction of protein function using protein-protein interaction data , 2002, Proceedings. IEEE Computer Society Bioinformatics Conference.

[12]  Natali Gulbahce,et al.  The art of community detection , 2008, BioEssays : news and reviews in molecular, cellular and developmental biology.

[13]  Jure Leskovec,et al.  Defining and evaluating network communities based on ground-truth , 2012, Knowledge and Information Systems.

[14]  Daniele Santoni,et al.  Comparative genomic analysis by microbial COGs self-attraction rate. , 2009, Journal of theoretical biology.

[15]  Silvio C. E. Tosatto,et al.  Protein function prediction using guilty by association from interaction networks , 2015, Amino Acids.

[16]  Paul Pavlidis,et al.  “Guilt by Association” Is the Exception Rather Than the Rule in Gene Networks , 2012, PLoS Comput. Biol..