The human protein coevolution network.

Coevolution maintains interactions between phenotypic traits through the process of reciprocal natural selection. Detecting molecular coevolution can expose functional interactions between molecules in the cell, generating insights into biological processes, pathways, and the networks of interactions important for cellular function. Prediction of interaction partners from different protein families exploits the property that interacting proteins can follow similar patterns and relative rates of evolution. Current methods for detecting coevolution based on the similarity of phylogenetic trees or evolutionary distance matrices have, however, been limited by requiring coevolution over the entire evolutionary history considered and are inaccurate in the presence of paralogous copies. We present a novel method for determining coevolving protein partners by finding the largest common submatrix in a given pair of distance matrices, with the size of the largest common submatrix measuring the strength of coevolution. This approach permits us to consider matrices of different size and scale, to find lineage-specific coevolution, and to predict multiple interaction partners. We used MatrixMatchMaker to predict protein-protein interactions in the human genome. We show that proteins that are known to interact physically are more strongly coevolving than proteins that simply belong to the same biochemical pathway. The human coevolution network is highly connected, suggesting many more protein-protein interactions than are currently known from high-throughput and other experimental evidence. These most strongly coevolving proteins suggest interactions that have been maintained over long periods of evolutionary time, and that are thus likely to be of fundamental importance to cellular function.

[1]  Teresa M. Przytycka,et al.  Computational Approaches to Predict Protein–Protein and Domain–Domain Interactions , 2007 .

[2]  Hirohisa Kishino,et al.  Phylogenetic methodology for detecting protein interactions. , 2006, Molecular biology and evolution.

[3]  F. Cohen,et al.  Co-evolution of proteins with their interaction partners. , 2000, Journal of molecular biology.

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

[5]  David L. Robertson,et al.  Specificity in protein interactions and its relationship with sequence diversity and coevolution , 2007, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

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

[7]  Arun K. Ramani,et al.  Exploiting the co-evolution of interacting proteins to discover interaction specificity. , 2003, Journal of molecular biology.

[8]  M. Vidal,et al.  Protein interaction mapping in C. elegans using proteins involved in vulval development. , 2000, Science.

[9]  Desiree Tillo,et al.  Codep: Maximizing co‐evolutionary interdependencies to discover interacting proteins , 2006, Proteins.

[10]  Roded Sharan,et al.  NetworkBLAST: comparative analysis of protein networks , 2008 .

[11]  David Haussler,et al.  Detecting Coevolution in and among Protein Domains , 2007, PLoS Comput. Biol..

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

[13]  D. Eisenberg,et al.  Assigning protein functions by comparative genome analysis: protein phylogenetic profiles. , 1999, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

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

[15]  M. Ashburner,et al.  Gene Ontology: tool for the unification of biology , 2000, Nature Genetics.

[16]  T. Ito,et al.  Toward a protein-protein interaction map of the budding yeast: A comprehensive system to examine two-hybrid interactions in all possible combinations between the yeast proteins. , 2000, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[17]  Weilong Hao,et al.  Patterns of bacterial gene movement. , 2004, Molecular biology and evolution.

[18]  Sunghoon Kim,et al.  Functional expansion of aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases and their interacting factors: new perspectives on housekeepers. , 2005, Trends in biochemical sciences.

[19]  Teresa M Przytycka,et al.  Predicting protein domain interactions from coevolution of conserved regions , 2007, Proteins.

[20]  Benjamin A. Shoemaker,et al.  Correlated evolution of interacting proteins: looking behind the mirrortree. , 2009, Journal of molecular biology.

[21]  Andrew D. Smith,et al.  A Transition Probability Model for Amino Acid Substitutions from Blocks , 2003, J. Comput. Biol..

[22]  Burkhard Rost,et al.  Protein–Protein Interactions More Conserved within Species than across Species , 2006, PLoS Comput. Biol..

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

[24]  Judith Frydman,et al.  In vivo newly translated polypeptides are sequestered in a protected folding environment , 1999, The EMBO journal.

[25]  Renée L. Brost,et al.  The interaction network of the chaperonin CCT , 2008, The EMBO journal.

[26]  Elisabeth R. M. Tillier,et al.  The accuracy of several multiple sequence alignment programs for proteins , 2006, BMC Bioinformatics.

[27]  Teresa M. Przytycka,et al.  Predicting protein-protein interaction by searching evolutionary tree automorphism space , 2005, ISMB.

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

[29]  A. Emili,et al.  Interaction network containing conserved and essential protein complexes in Escherichia coli , 2005, Nature.

[30]  Raja Jothi,et al.  Co-evolutionary analysis of domains in interacting proteins reveals insights into domain-domain interactions mediating protein-protein interactions. , 2006, Journal of molecular biology.

[31]  Eugene V Koonin,et al.  Correction: No simple dependence between protein evolution rate and the number of protein-protein interactions: only the most prolific interactors tend to evolve slowly , 2003, BMC Evolutionary Biology.

[32]  M. Vidal,et al.  Literature-curated protein interaction datasets , 2009, Nature Methods.

[33]  Kazutaka Katoh,et al.  Recent developments in the MAFFT multiple sequence alignment program , 2008, Briefings Bioinform..

[34]  L. Mirny,et al.  Protein complexes and functional modules in molecular networks , 2003, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[35]  Martin Kuiper,et al.  BiNGO: a Cytoscape plugin to assess overrepresentation of Gene Ontology categories in Biological Networks , 2005, Bioinform..

[36]  Sailu Yellaboina,et al.  Prediction of evolutionarily conserved interologs in Mus musculus , 2008, BMC Genomics.

[37]  M. Vidal,et al.  Literature-curated protein interaction , 2009 .

[38]  M. Sternberg,et al.  Assessing protein co-evolution in the context of the tree of life assists in the prediction of the interactome. , 2005, Journal of molecular biology.

[39]  B. Stoddard,et al.  The allosteric regulation of pyruvate kinase by fructose-1,6-bisphosphate. , 1998, Structure.

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

[41]  Alfonso Valencia,et al.  Enhancing the prediction of protein pairings between interacting families using orthology information , 2008 .

[42]  Stefan Wuchty,et al.  Stable evolutionary signal in a Yeast protein interaction network , 2006, BMC Evolutionary Biology.

[43]  R. Melki,et al.  The cytosolic chaperonin CCT associates to cytoplasmic microtubular structures during mammalian spermiogenesis and to heterochromatin in germline and somatic cells. , 2003, Experimental cell research.

[44]  Thomas W. H. Lui,et al.  Using multiple interdependency to separate functional from phylogenetic correlations in protein alignments , 2003, Bioinform..

[45]  Florencio Pazos,et al.  Prediction of protein interaction based on similarity of phylogenetic trees. , 2008, Methods in molecular biology.

[46]  R. Campbell,et al.  Co-evolution of ligand-receptor pairs , 1994, Nature.

[47]  H. Christofk,et al.  Pyruvate kinase M2 is a phosphotyrosine-binding protein , 2008, Nature.

[48]  Susumu Goto,et al.  The KEGG resource for deciphering the genome , 2004, Nucleic Acids Res..

[49]  Alexander Rives,et al.  Modular organization of cellular networks , 2003, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

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

[51]  Yoshihiro Yamanishi,et al.  The inference of protein-protein interactions by co-evolutionary analysis is improved by excluding the information about the phylogenetic relationships , 2005, Bioinform..

[52]  K. J. Fryxell,et al.  The coevolution of gene family trees. , 1996, Trends in genetics : TIG.

[53]  J. Thompson,et al.  CLUSTAL W: improving the sensitivity of progressive multiple sequence alignment through sequence weighting, position-specific gap penalties and weight matrix choice. , 1994, Nucleic acids research.

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

[55]  Benno Schwikowski,et al.  Biomolecular Interaction Networks Cytoscape : A Software Environment for Integrated Models of , 2003 .

[56]  Shmuel Sattath,et al.  How reliable are experimental protein-protein interaction data? , 2003, Journal of molecular biology.

[57]  J. Kovács,et al.  Pyruvate kinase as a microtubule destabilizing factor in vitro. , 1999, Biochemical and biophysical research communications.

[58]  Benjamin A. Shoemaker,et al.  Deciphering Protein–Protein Interactions. Part II. Computational Methods to Predict Protein and Domain Interaction Partners , 2007, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[59]  Yoshihiro Yamanishi,et al.  Partial correlation coefficient between distance matrices as a new indicator of protein-protein interactions , 2006, Bioinform..

[60]  Hanno Steen,et al.  Development of human protein reference database as an initial platform for approaching systems biology in humans. , 2003, Genome research.

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

[62]  S. Forsburg,et al.  Eukaryotic DNA replication in a chromatin context. , 2006, Current topics in developmental biology.

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

[64]  K. Greulich,et al.  Genes of glycolysis are ubiquitously overexpressed in 24 cancer classes. , 2004, Genomics.

[65]  A. E. Hirsh,et al.  Evolutionary Rate in the Protein Interaction Network , 2002, Science.

[66]  Dan M. Bolser,et al.  Large-scale co-evolution analysis of protein structural interlogues using the global protein structural interactome map (PSIMAP) , 2004, Bioinform..

[67]  B. Snel,et al.  The identification of functional modules from the genomic association of genes , 2002, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[68]  T. Tanaka,et al.  Crystallization, characterization and metabolic regulation of two types of pyruvate kinase isolated from rat tissues. , 1967, Journal of Biochemistry (Tokyo).

[69]  A. Valencia,et al.  High-confidence prediction of global interactomes based on genome-wide coevolutionary networks , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

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

[71]  M P Deutscher,et al.  Active Aminoacyl-tRNA Synthetases Are Present in Nuclei as a High Molecular Weight Multienzyme Complex* , 2000, The Journal of Biological Chemistry.

[72]  S. L. Wong,et al.  Towards a proteome-scale map of the human protein–protein interaction network , 2005, Nature.

[73]  Gary D Bader,et al.  Analyzing yeast protein–protein interaction data obtained from different sources , 2002, Nature Biotechnology.

[74]  August B. Smit,et al.  Co-evolution of Ligand-Receptor Pairs in the Vasopressin/Oxytocin Superfamily of Bioactive Peptides (*) , 1996, The Journal of Biological Chemistry.

[75]  Alfonso Valencia,et al.  Prediction of protein-protein interactions from evolutionary information. , 2003, Methods of biochemical analysis.

[76]  Stefan Wuchty,et al.  Peeling the yeast protein network , 2005, Proteomics.

[77]  Dennis P Wall,et al.  A simple dependence between protein evolution rate and the number of protein-protein interactions , 2003, BMC Evolutionary Biology.

[78]  A. Ullrich,et al.  Nuclear translocation of the tumor marker pyruvate kinase M2 induces programmed cell death. , 2007, Cancer research.

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