Virtual identification of essential proteins within the protein interaction network of yeast

Topological analysis of large scale protein‐protein interaction networks (PINs) is important for understanding the organizational and functional principles of individual proteins. The number of interactions that a protein has in a PIN has been observed to be correlated with its indispensability. Essential proteins generally have more interactions than the nonessential ones. We show here that the lethality associated with removal of a protein from the yeast proteome correlates with different centrality measures of the nodes in the PIN, such as the closeness of a protein to many other proteins, or the number of pairs of proteins which need a specific protein as an intermediary in their communications, or the participation of a protein in different protein clusters in the PIN. These measures are significantly better than random selection in identifying essential proteins in a PIN. Centrality measures based on graph spectral properties of the network, in particular the subgraph centrality, show the best performance in identifying essential proteins in the yeast PIN. Subgraph centrality gives important structural information about the role of individual proteins, and permits the selection of possible targets for rational drug discovery through the identification of essential proteins in the PIN.

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

[2]  N. Biggs.  Algebraic Graph Theory , 1974 .

[3]  B. Bainbridge,et al.  Genetics , 1981, Experientia.

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

[5]  L. Freeman.  Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification , 1978 .

[6]  P. Bonacich.  Power and Centrality: A Family of Measures , 1987, American Journal of Sociology.

[7]  John Scott.  What is social network analysis , 2010 .

[8]  M. Zelen,et al.  Rethinking centrality: Methods and examples☆ , 1989 .

[9]  S. Wasserman,et al.  Social Network Analysis: Computer Programs , 1994 .

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

[11]  A. Force,et al.  Preservation of duplicate genes by complementary, degenerative mutations. , 1999, Genetics.

[12]  Ronald W. Davis,et al.  Functional characterization of the S. cerevisiae genome by gene deletion and parallel analysis. , 1999, Science.

[13]  Kei-Hoi Cheung,et al.  Large-scale analysis of the yeast genome by transposon tagging and gene disruption , 1999, Nature.

[14]  Albert,et al.  Emergence of scaling in random networks , 1999, Science.

[15]  D. Fell,et al.  The small world of metabolism , 2000, Nature Biotechnology.

[16]  김삼묘,et al.  “Bioinformatics” 특집을 내면서 , 2000 .

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

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

[19]  S. Strogatz.  Exploring complex networks , 2001, Nature.

[20]  A. Wagner.  The yeast protein interaction network evolves rapidly and contains few redundant duplicate genes. , 2001, Molecular biology and evolution.

[21]  Albert-László Barabási,et al.  Statistical mechanics of complex networks , 2001, ArXiv.

[22]  A. Vespignani,et al.  Modeling of Protein Interaction Networks , 2001, Complexus.

[23]  S. Shen-Orr,et al.  Network motifs: simple building blocks of complex networks. , 2002, Science.

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

[25]  A. Barabasi,et al.  Hierarchical Organization of Modularity in Metabolic Networks , 2002, Science.

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

[27]  Guillermo Owen,et al.  Centrality and power in social networks: a game theoretic approach , 2003, Math. Soc. Sci..

[28]  An-Ping Zeng,et al.  The Connectivity Structure, Giant Strong Component and Centrality of Metabolic Networks , 2003, Bioinform..

[29]  D. Bu,et al.  Topological structure analysis of the protein-protein interaction network in budding yeast. , 2003, Nucleic acids research.

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

[31]  P. Stadler,et al.  Centers of complex networks. , 2003, Journal of theoretical biology.

[32]  Mark E. J. Newman,et al.  The Structure and Function of Complex Networks , 2003, SIAM Rev..

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

[34]  R. Milo,et al.  Network motifs in integrated cellular networks of transcription-regulation and protein-protein interaction. , 2004, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[35]  F. Gannon.  Ethical profits from publishing , 2004, EMBO reports.

[36]  Anton J. Enright,et al.  Detection of functional modules from protein interaction networks , 2003, Proteins.

[37]  S. Shen-Orr,et al.  Superfamilies of Evolved and Designed Networks , 2004, Science.

[38]  S. Wuchty.  Evolution and topology in the yeast protein interaction network. , 2004, Genome research.

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

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

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

[42]  B. Snel,et al.  The yeast coexpression network has a small‐world, scale‐free architecture and can be explained by a simple model , 2004, EMBO reports.

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

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