Hierarchical and Topological Study of the protein-protein Interaction Networks

We employ the random graph theory approach to analyze the protein–protein interaction database DIP. Several global topological parameters are used to characterize the protein–protein interaction networks (PINs) for seven organisms. We find that the seven PINs are well approximated by the scale-free networks, that is, the node degree cumulative distribution Pcum(k) scales with the node degree k (Pcum(k) ~ k-α). We also find that the logarithm of the average clustering coefficient Cave(k) scales with k (Cave(k) ~ k-β), for E. coli and S. cerevisiae. In particular, we determine that the E. coli and the S. cerevisiae PINs are better represented by the stochastic and deterministic hierarchical network models, respectively. The current fruit fly protein–protein interaction dataset does not have convincing evidence in favor of the hierarchical network model. These findings lead us to conclude that, in contrast to scale-free structure, hierarchical structure model applies for certain species' PINs only.We also demonstrate that PINs are robust when subject to random perturbation where up to 50% of the nodes are rewired. Average node degree correlation study supports the fact that nodes of low connectivity are correlated, whereas nodes of high connectivity are not directly linked.

[1]  J. Kertész,et al.  Structural transitions in scale-free networks. , 2002, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[2]  S. L. Wong,et al.  A Map of the Interactome Network of the Metazoan C. elegans , 2004, Science.

[3]  A. Barabasi,et al.  The topology of the transcription regulatory network in the yeast , 2002, cond-mat/0205181.

[4]  R. Russell,et al.  Potential artefacts in protein‐interaction networks , 2002, FEBS letters.

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

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

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

[8]  An-Ping Zeng,et al.  Reconstruction of metabolic networks from genome data and analysis of their global structure for various organisms , 2003, Bioinform..

[9]  Sergei Maslov,et al.  Protein interaction networks beyond artifacts , 2002, FEBS letters.

[10]  H. Lodish Molecular Cell Biology , 1986 .

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

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

[13]  Carlos J. Melián,et al.  Complex networks: two ways to be robust? , 2002 .

[14]  Albert-László Barabási,et al.  Hierarchical organization in complex networks. , 2003, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

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

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

[17]  A. Barabasi,et al.  Functional and topological characterization of protein interaction networks , 2004, Proteomics.

[18]  S. N. Dorogovtsev,et al.  Pseudofractal scale-free web. , 2001, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[19]  Beom Jun Kim,et al.  Growing scale-free networks with tunable clustering. , 2001, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[20]  M. Kanehisa Post-Genome Informatics , 2000 .

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

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