Protein Networks Reveal Detection Bias and Species Consistency When Analysed by Information-Theoretic Methods

We apply our recently developed information-theoretic measures for the characterisation and comparison of protein–protein interaction networks. These measures are used to quantify topological network features via macroscopic statistical properties. Network differences are assessed based on these macroscopic properties as opposed to microscopic overlap, homology information or motif occurrences. We present the results of a large–scale analysis of protein–protein interaction networks. Precise null models are used in our analyses, allowing for reliable interpretation of the results. By quantifying the methodological biases of the experimental data, we can define an information threshold above which networks may be deemed to comprise consistent macroscopic topological properties, despite their small microscopic overlaps. Based on this rationale, data from yeast–two–hybrid methods are sufficiently consistent to allow for intra–species comparisons (between different experiments) and inter–species comparisons, while data from affinity–purification mass–spectrometry methods show large differences even within intra–species comparisons.

[1]  Natasa Przulj,et al.  Biological network comparison using graphlet degree distribution , 2007, Bioinform..

[2]  Yasukazu Nakamura,et al.  A Large Scale Analysis of Protein–Protein Interactions in the Nitrogen-fixing Bacterium Mesorhizobium loti , 2008, DNA research : an international journal for rapid publication of reports on genes and genomes.

[3]  Julie M. Sahalie,et al.  An experimentally derived confidence score for binary protein-protein interactions , 2008, Nature Methods.

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

[5]  Julie A. Hines,et al.  A proteome-wide protein interaction map for Campylobacter jejuni , 2007, Genome Biology.

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

[7]  Natasa Przulj,et al.  Learning the Structure of Protein-Protein Interaction Networks , 2009, Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing.

[8]  Jaques Reifman,et al.  Probing the Extent of Randomness in Protein Interaction Networks , 2008, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[9]  A. Barabasi,et al.  An empirical framework for binary interactome mapping , 2008, Nature Methods.

[10]  Jaques Reifman,et al.  A Novel Scoring Approach for Protein Co-Purification Data Reveals High Interaction Specificity , 2009, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[11]  P. Uetz,et al.  The Binary Protein Interactome of Treponema pallidum – The Syphilis Spirochete , 2008, PloS one.

[12]  Hernán A Makse,et al.  Scaling of degree correlations and its influence on diffusion in scale-free networks. , 2008, Physical review letters.

[13]  Hyeong Jun An,et al.  Estimating the size of the human interactome , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

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

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

[16]  Tijana Milenkoviæ,et al.  Uncovering Biological Network Function via Graphlet Degree Signatures , 2008, Cancer informatics.

[17]  G. Cesareni,et al.  Comparative interactomics: comparing apples and pears? , 2007, Trends in biotechnology.

[18]  Alessandro Vespignani,et al.  Epidemic spreading in scale-free networks. , 2000, Physical review letters.

[19]  J. Wojcik,et al.  The protein–protein interaction map of Helicobacter pylori , 2001, Nature.

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

[21]  Sean R. Collins,et al.  Global landscape of protein complexes in the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae , 2006, Nature.

[22]  E. Schadt.  Molecular networks as sensors and drivers of common human diseases , 2009, Nature.

[23]  Caroline C. Friedel,et al.  Bootstrapping the Interactome: Unsupervised Identification of Protein Complexes in Yeast , 2008, J. Comput. Biol..

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

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

[26]  Yasukazu Nakamura,et al.  A Large-scale Protein–protein Interaction Analysis in Synechocystis sp. PCC6803 , 2007, DNA research : an international journal for rapid publication of reports on genes and genomes.

[27]  Carsten Wiuf,et al.  The effects of incomplete protein interaction data on structural and evolutionary inferences , 2006, BMC Biology.

[28]  K. Gunsalus,et al.  Empirically controlled mapping of the Caenorhabditis elegans protein-protein interactome network , 2009, Nature Methods.

[29]  R. Karp,et al.  Conserved pathways within bacteria and yeast as revealed by global protein network alignment , 2003, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[30]  M. Vidal.  A unifying view of 21st century systems biology , 2009, FEBS letters.

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

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

[33]  Luisa Montecchi Palazzi,et al.  Comparative interactomics , 2005, FEBS letters.

[34]  M. Tyers,et al.  Stratus Not Altocumulus: A New View of the Yeast Protein Interaction Network , 2006, PLoS biology.

[35]  A. Annibale,et al.  Constrained Markovian Dynamics of Random Graphs , 2009, 0905.4155.

[36]  A.C.C. Coolen,et al.  Spin models on random graphs with controlled topologies beyond degree constraints , 2008, 0803.0489.

[37]  Daniel P. Miranker,et al.  Mining gene functional networks to improve mass-spectrometry-based protein identification , 2009, Bioinform..

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

[39]  Albert-László Barabási,et al.  Scale-Free Networks: A Decade and Beyond , 2009, Science.

[40]  Caroline C. Friedel,et al.  Influence of degree correlations on network structure and stability in protein-protein interaction networks , 2007, BMC Bioinformatics.

[41]  M E J Newman.  Assortative mixing in networks. , 2002, Physical review letters.

[42]  J. Reifman,et al.  Influence of Protein Abundance on High-Throughput Protein-Protein Interaction Detection , 2009, PloS one.

[43]  Carsten Wiuf,et al.  Subnets of scale-free networks are not scale-free: sampling properties of networks. , 2005, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[44]  S. Kanaya,et al.  Large-scale identification of protein-protein interaction of Escherichia coli K-12. , 2006, Genome research.

[45]  H. Lehrach,et al.  A Human Protein-Protein Interaction Network: A Resource for Annotating the Proteome , 2005, Cell.

[46]  E A Leicht,et al.  Mixture models and exploratory analysis in networks , 2006, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

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

[48]  Emmanuel D. Levy,et al.  How Perfect Can Protein Interactomes Be? , 2009, Science Signaling.

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

[50]  Arun K. Ramani,et al.  How complete are current yeast and human protein-interaction networks? , 2006, Genome Biology.

[51]  Sergey N. Dorogovtsev,et al.  Evolution of Networks: From Biological Nets to the Internet and WWW (Physics) , 2003 .

[52]  M. Moran,et al.  Large-scale mapping of human protein–protein interactions by mass spectrometry , 2007, Molecular systems biology.

[53]  Richard M. Karp,et al.  Comparing Protein Interaction Networks via a Graph Match-and-Split Algorithm , 2007, J. Comput. Biol..

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

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

[56]  Roded Sharan,et al.  PathBLAST: a tool for alignment of protein interaction networks , 2004, Nucleic Acids Res..

[57]  M. Vignali,et al.  A protein interaction network of the malaria parasite Plasmodium falciparum , 2005, Nature.

[58]  R. Ozawa,et al.  A comprehensive two-hybrid analysis to explore the yeast protein interactome , 2001, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[59]  Eric E. Schadt,et al.  Advances in systems biology are enhancing our understanding of disease and moving us closer to novel disease treatments , 2009, Genetica.

[60]  Albert-László Barabási,et al.  Evolution of Networks: From Biological Nets to the Internet and WWW , 2004 .

[61]  Gary D Bader,et al.  Systematic identification of protein complexes in Saccharomyces cerevisiae by mass spectrometry , 2002, Nature.

[62]  James Vlasblom,et al.  Challenges and Rewards of Interaction Proteomics * , 2009, Molecular & Cellular Proteomics.

[63]  P. Bork,et al.  Functional organization of the yeast proteome by systematic analysis of protein complexes , 2002, Nature.

[64]  J. J. Seidel,et al.  A SURVEY OF TWO-GRAPHS , 1976 .

[65]  Ozlem Keskin,et al.  Human Cancer Protein-Protein Interaction Network: A Structural Perspective , 2009, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[66]  Sean R. Collins,et al.  Toward a Comprehensive Atlas of the Physical Interactome of Saccharomyces cerevisiae*S , 2007, Molecular & Cellular Proteomics.