Apparent dependence of protein evolutionary rate on number of interactions is linked to biases in protein–protein interactions data sets

BackgroundSeveral studies have suggested that proteins that interact with more partners evolve more slowly. The strength and validity of this association has been called into question. Here we investigate how biases in high-throughput protein–protein interaction studies could lead to a spurious correlation.ResultsWe examined the correlation between evolutionary rate and the number of protein–protein interactions for sets of interactions determined by seven different high-throughput methods in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Some methods have been shown to be biased towards counting more interactions for abundant proteins, a fact that could be important since abundant proteins are known to evolve more slowly. We show that the apparent tendency for interactive proteins to evolve more slowly varies directly with the bias towards counting more interactions for abundant proteins. Interactions studies with no bias show no correlation between evolutionary rate and the number of interactions, and the one study biased towards counting fewer interactions for abundant proteins actually suggests that interactive proteins evolve more rapidly. In all cases, controlling for protein abundance significantly decreases the observed correlation between interactions and evolutionary rate. Finally, we disprove the hypothesis that small data set size accounts for the failure of some interactions studies to show a correlation between evolutionary rate and the number of interactions.ConclusionsThe only correlation supported by a careful analysis of the data is between evolutionary rate and protein abundance. The reported correlation between evolutionary rate and protein–protein interactions cannot be separated from the biases of some protein–protein interactions studies to count more interactions for abundant proteins.

[1]  Graham K. Rand,et al.  Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences , 1983 .

[2]  P. Sharp,et al.  The codon Adaptation Index--a measure of directional synonymous codon usage bias, and its potential applications. , 1987, Nucleic acids research.

[3]  J. Gibbons.  Nonparametric measures of association , 1993 .

[4]  N. Grishin,et al.  The subunit interfaces of oligomeric enzymes are conserved to a similar extent to the overall protein sequences , 1994, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

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

[6]  D. Eisenberg,et al.  Detecting protein function and protein-protein interactions from genome sequences. , 1999, Science.

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

[8]  R. Overbeek,et al.  The use of gene clusters to infer functional coupling. , 1999, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[9]  S. Gygi,et al.  Correlation between Protein and mRNA Abundance in Yeast , 1999, Molecular and Cellular Biology.

[10]  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.

[11]  Anton J. Enright,et al.  Protein interaction maps for complete genomes based on gene fusion events , 1999, Nature.

[12]  Ronald W. Davis,et al.  Functional characterization of the S. cerevisiae genome by gene deletion and parallel analysis. , 1999, Science.

[13]  J. Brookfield,et al.  What determines the rate of sequence evolution? , 2000, Current biology : CB.

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

[15]  K. H. Wolfe,et al.  Relationship of codon bias to mRNA concentration and protein length in Saccharomyces cerevisiae , 2000, Yeast.

[16]  P. Brown,et al.  Global mapping of meiotic recombination hotspots and coldspots in the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae. , 2000, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[17]  Warren C. Lathe,et al.  Predicting protein function by genomic context: quantitative evaluation and qualitative inferences. , 2000, Genome research.

[18]  John F. Y. Brookfield,et al.  Evolution: What determines the rate of sequence evolution? , 2000, Current Biology.

[19]  C. Pál,et al.  Does the recombination rate affect the efficiency of purifying selection? The yeast genome provides a partial answer. , 2001, Molecular biology and evolution.

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

[21]  C. Pál,et al.  Highly expressed genes in yeast evolve slowly. , 2001, Genetics.

[22]  Gary D Bader,et al.  Systematic Genetic Analysis with Ordered Arrays of Yeast Deletion Mutants , 2001, Science.

[23]  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.

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

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

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

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

[28]  Laurence D. Hurst,et al.  Genomic function (communication arising): Rate of evolution and gene dispensability , 2003, Nature.

[29]  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.

[30]  C. Pál,et al.  Genomic function: Rate of evolution and gene dispensability. , 2003, Nature.

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

[32]  D. P. Wall,et al.  Detecting putative orthologs , 2003, Bioinform..

[33]  C. Wilke,et al.  Evolution of mutational robustness. , 2003, Mutation research.