Preferential duplication in the sparse part of yeast protein interaction network.

Gene duplication is an important mechanism driving the evolution of biomolecular network. Thus, it is expected that there should be a strong relationship between a gene's duplicability and the interactions of its protein product with other proteins in the network. We studied this question in the context of the protein interaction network (PIN) of Saccharomyces cerevisiae. We found that duplicates have, on average, significantly lower clustering coefficient (CC) than singletons, and the proportion of duplicates (PD) decreases steadily with CC. Furthermore, using functional annotation data, we observed a strong negative correlation between PD and the mean CC for functional categories. By partitioning the network into modules and assigning each protein a modularity measure Q(n), we found that CC of a protein is a reflection of its modularity. Moreover, the core components of complexes identified in a recent high-throughput experiment, characterized by high CC, have lower PD than that of the attachments. Subsequently, 2 types of hub were identified by their degree, CC and Q(n). Although PD of intramodular hubs is much less than the network average, PD of intermodular hubs is comparable to, or even higher than, the network average. Our results suggest that high CC, and thus high modularity, pose strong evolutionary constraints on gene duplicability, and gene duplication prefers to happen in the sparse part of PINs.

[1]  Dmitri A Petrov,et al.  Do disparate mechanisms of duplication add similar genes to the genome? , 2005, Trends in genetics : TIG.

[2]  Natalia Maltsev,et al.  Higher Gene Duplicabilities for Metabolic Proteins Than for Nonmetabolic Proteins in Yeast and E. coli , 2004, Journal of Molecular Evolution.

[3]  Jianzhi Zhang,et al.  Higher duplicability of less important genes in yeast genomes. , 2006, Molecular biology and evolution.

[4]  J. Hopfield,et al.  From molecular to modular cell biology , 1999, Nature.

[5]  C. Pál,et al.  Dosage sensitivity and the evolution of gene families in yeast , 2003, Nature.

[6]  Adam J. Smith,et al.  The Database of Interacting Proteins: 2004 update , 2004, Nucleic Acids Res..

[7]  Hunter B. Fraser,et al.  Modularity and evolutionary constraint on proteins , 2005, Nature Genetics.

[8]  Jeroen Raes,et al.  Duplication and divergence: the evolution of new genes and old ideas. , 2004, Annual review of genetics.

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

[10]  X. Gu,et al.  Evolution of alternative splicing after gene duplication. , 2005, Genome research.

[11]  Hans-Werner Mewes,et al.  MPact: the MIPS protein interaction resource on yeast , 2005, Nucleic Acids Res..

[12]  A. Hughes The evolution of functionally novel proteins after gene duplication , 1994, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[13]  D. Eisenberg,et al.  Protein function in the post-genomic era , 2000, Nature.

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

[15]  H. Herzel,et al.  Is there a bias in proteome research? , 2001, Genome research.

[16]  Ronald W. Davis,et al.  Role of duplicate genes in genetic robustness against null mutations , 2003, Nature.

[17]  Sudhir Kumar,et al.  Comparative Genomics in Eukaryotes , 2005 .

[18]  Austin L. Hughes,et al.  Gene Duplication and the Properties of Biological Networks , 2005, Journal of Molecular Evolution.

[19]  Ioannis Xenarios,et al.  DIP: The Database of Interacting Proteins: 2001 update , 2001, Nucleic Acids Res..

[20]  H. Mewes,et al.  The FunCat, a functional annotation scheme for systematic classification of proteins from whole genomes. , 2004, Nucleic acids research.

[21]  Hideki Innan,et al.  Very Low Gene Duplication Rate in the Yeast Genome , 2004, Science.

[22]  D. Petrov,et al.  Preferential Duplication of Conserved Proteins in Eukaryotic Genomes , 2004, PLoS biology.

[23]  Wen-Hsiung Li,et al.  Protein function, connectivity, and duplicability in yeast. , 2006, Molecular biology and evolution.

[24]  Jianzhi Zhang,et al.  Gene Complexity and Gene Duplicability , 2005, Current Biology.

[25]  Guillaume Blanc,et al.  Functional Divergence of Duplicated Genes Formed by Polyploidy during Arabidopsis Evolution , 2004, The Plant Cell Online.

[26]  Ronald W. Davis,et al.  Systematic screen for human disease genes in yeast , 2002, Nature Genetics.

[27]  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.

[28]  Eugene V Koonin,et al.  A common framework for understanding the origin of genetic dominance and evolutionary fates of gene duplications. , 2004, Trends in genetics : TIG.

[29]  Z. Gu,et al.  Extent of gene duplication in the genomes of Drosophila, nematode, and yeast. , 2002, Molecular biology and evolution.

[30]  M. R. Adams,et al.  Comparative genomics of the eukaryotes. , 2000, Science.

[31]  Doron Lancet,et al.  Alternative splicing and gene duplication are inversely correlated evolutionary mechanisms , 2005, Nature Genetics.

[32]  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.

[33]  M. Lynch,et al.  The evolutionary fate and consequences of duplicate genes. , 2000, Science.

[34]  P. Uetz,et al.  From protein networks to biological systems , 2005, FEBS letters.

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

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

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

[38]  Andreas Wagner,et al.  GenomeHistory: a software tool and its application to fully sequenced genomes. , 2002, Nucleic acids research.

[39]  A. Wagner How the global structure of protein interaction networks evolves , 2002, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.