Protein complex forming ability is favored over the features of interacting partners in determining the evolutionary rates of proteins in the yeast protein-protein interaction networks

BackgroundEvolutionary rates of proteins in a protein-protein interaction network are primarily governed by the protein connectivity and/or expression level. A recent study revealed the importance of the features of the interacting protein partners, viz., the coefficient of functionality and clustering coefficient in controlling the protein evolutionary rates in a protein-protein interaction (PPI) network.ResultsBy multivariate regression analysis we found that the three parameters: probability of complex formation, expression level and degree of a protein independently guide the evolutionary rates of proteins in the PPI network. The contribution of the complex forming property of a protein and its expression level led to nearly 43% of the total variation as observed from the first principal component. We also found that for complex forming proteins in the network, those which have partners sharing the same functional class evolve faster than those having partners belonging to different functional classes. The proteins in the dense parts of the network evolve faster than their counterparts which are present in the sparse regions of the network. Taking into account the complex forming ability, we found that all the complex forming proteins considered in this study evolve slower than the non-complex forming proteins irrespective of their localization in the network or the affiliation of their partners to same/different functional classes.ConclusionsWe have shown here that the functionality and clustering coefficient correlated with the degree of the protein in the protein-protein interaction network. We have identified the significant relationship of the complex-forming property of proteins and their evolutionary rates even when they are classified according to the features of their interacting partners. Our study implies that the evolutionarily constrained proteins are actually members of a larger number of protein complexes and this justifies why they have enhanced expression levels.

[1]  Joshua B Plotkin,et al.  Assessing the determinants of evolutionary rates in the presence of noise. , 2007, Molecular biology and evolution.

[2]  Michael Jünger,et al.  Graph Drawing Software , 2003, Graph Drawing Software.

[3]  Anders Blomberg,et al.  Evolutionary constraints on yeast protein size , 2006, BMC Evolutionary Biology.

[4]  Dmitrij Frishman,et al.  An evolutionary and structural characterization of mammalian protein complex organization , 2008, BMC Genomics.

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

[6]  C. Adami,et al.  Apparent dependence of protein evolutionary rate on number of interactions is linked to biases in protein–protein interactions data sets , 2003, BMC Evolutionary Biology.

[7]  K. Wolfe.  Evolutionary Genomics: Yeasts Accelerate beyond BLAST , 2004, Current Biology.

[8]  Ioannis Xenarios,et al.  DIP, the Database of Interacting Proteins: a research tool for studying cellular networks of protein interactions , 2002, Nucleic Acids Res..

[9]  T. Jukes,et al.  The neutral theory of molecular evolution. , 2000, Genetics.

[10]  S. Teichmann.  The constraints protein-protein interactions place on sequence divergence. , 2002, Journal of molecular biology.

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

[12]  A. Vinogradov.  Global Versus Local Centrality in Evolution of Yeast Protein Network , 2009, Journal of Molecular Evolution.

[13]  Rodrigo Lopez,et al.  Clustal W and Clustal X version 2.0 , 2007, Bioinform..

[14]  Michael R. Green,et al.  Dissecting the Regulatory Circuitry of a Eukaryotic Genome , 1998, Cell.

[15]  Thomas L. Madden,et al.  Improving the accuracy of PSI-BLAST protein database searches with composition-based statistics and other refinements. , 2001, Nucleic acids research.

[16]  Dmitrij Frishman,et al.  MIPS: a database for genomes and protein sequences , 1999, Nucleic Acids Res..

[17]  C. Pál,et al.  An integrated view of protein evolution , 2006, Nature Reviews Genetics.

[18]  B. Birren,et al.  Sequencing and comparison of yeast species to identify genes and regulatory elements , 2003, Nature.

[19]  K. Holsinger.  The neutral theory of molecular evolution , 2004 .

[20]  Vladimir Batagelj,et al.  Pajek - Analysis and Visualization of Large Networks , 2004, Graph Drawing Software.

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

[22]  C. Daub,et al.  BMC Systems Biology , 2007 .

[23]  Berend Snel,et al.  Protein Complex Evolution Does Not Involve Extensive Network Rewiring , 2008, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[24]  C. Wilke,et al.  A single determinant dominates the rate of yeast protein evolution. , 2006, Molecular biology and evolution.

[25]  T. Ghosh,et al.  Multifunctionality dominantly determines the rate of human housekeeping and tissue specific interacting protein evolution. , 2009, Gene.

[26]  Z. Weng,et al.  Structure, function, and evolution of transient and obligate protein-protein interactions. , 2005, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[27]  C. Wilke,et al.  Why highly expressed proteins evolve slowly. , 2005, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[28]  S. Yi,et al.  Understanding relationship between sequence and functional evolution in yeast proteins , 2007, Genetica.

[29]  C. Deane,et al.  Protein Interactions , 2002, Molecular & Cellular Proteomics.

[30]  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.

[31]  Bertrand Séraphin,et al.  Recent developments in the analysis of protein complexes 1 , 2004, FEBS letters.

[32]  Bratati Kahali,et al.  Exploring the evolutionary rate differences of party hub and date hub proteins in Saccharomyces cerevisiae protein-protein interaction network. , 2009, Gene.

[33]  Matthew W. Hahn,et al.  Comparative genomics of centrality and essentiality in three eukaryotic protein-interaction networks. , 2005, Molecular biology and evolution.

[34]  William Stafford Noble,et al.  Predicting Co-Complexed Protein Pairs from Heterogeneous Data , 2008, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[35]  T. Ghosh,et al.  Exploring the differences in evolutionary rates between monogenic and polygenic disease genes in human. , 2010, Molecular biology and evolution.

[36]  Baisali Manna,et al.  Evolutionary constraints on hub and non-hub proteins in human protein interaction network: insight from protein connectivity and intrinsic disorder. , 2009, Gene.

[37]  Takashi Makino,et al.  The evolutionary rate of a protein is influenced by features of the interacting partners. , 2006, Molecular biology and evolution.

[38]  Z N Oltvai,et al.  Evolutionary conservation of motif constituents in the yeast protein interaction network , 2003, Nature Genetics.