Stratus Not Altocumulus: A New View of the Yeast Protein Interaction Network

Systems biology approaches can reveal intermediary levels of organization between genotype and phenotype that often underlie biological phenomena such as polygenic effects and protein dispensability. An important conceptualization is the module, which is loosely defined as a cohort of proteins that perform a dedicated cellular task. Based on a computational analysis of limited interaction datasets in the budding yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae, it has been suggested that the global protein interaction network is segregated such that highly connected proteins, called hubs, tend not to link to each other. Moreover, it has been suggested that hubs fall into two distinct classes: “party” hubs are co-expressed and co-localized with their partners, whereas “date” hubs interact with incoherently expressed and diversely localized partners, and thereby cohere disparate parts of the global network. This structure may be compared with altocumulus clouds, i.e., cotton ball–like structures sparsely connected by thin wisps. However, this organization might reflect a small and/or biased sample set of interactions. In a multi-validated high-confidence (HC) interaction network, assembled from all extant S. cerevisiae interaction data, including recently available proteome-wide interaction data and a large set of reliable literature-derived interactions, we find that hub–hub interactions are not suppressed. In fact, the number of interactions a hub has with other hubs is a good predictor of whether a hub protein is essential or not. We find that date hubs are neither required for network tolerance to node deletion, nor do date hubs have distinct biological attributes compared to other hubs. Date and party hubs do not, for example, evolve at different rates. Our analysis suggests that the organization of global protein interaction network is highly interconnected and hence interdependent, more like the continuous dense aggregations of stratus clouds than the segregated configuration of altocumulus clouds. If the network is configured in a stratus format, cross-talk between proteins is potentially a major source of noise. In turn, control of the activity of the most highly connected proteins may be vital. Indeed, we find that a fluctuation in steady-state levels of the most connected proteins is minimized.

[1]  J. Hartigan,et al.  The Dip Test of Unimodality , 1985 .

[2]  P. M. Hartigan,et al.  Computation of the Dip Statistic to Test for Unimodality , 1985 .

[3]  Ronald L. Rivest,et al.  Introduction to Algorithms , 1990 .

[4]  Thomas M. Cover,et al.  Elements of Information Theory , 2005 .

[5]  Ziheng Yang,et al.  PAML: a program package for phylogenetic analysis by maximum likelihood , 1997, Comput. Appl. Biosci..

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

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

[8]  Ioannis Xenarios,et al.  DIP: the Database of Interacting Proteins , 2000, Nucleic Acids Res..

[9]  Albert-László Barabási,et al.  Error and attack tolerance of complex networks , 2000, Nature.

[10]  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.

[11]  A. Murray,et al.  Whither genomics? , 2000, Genome Biology.

[12]  Dmitrij Frishman,et al.  MIPS: a database for genomes and protein sequences , 2000, Nucleic Acids Res..

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

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

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

[16]  Gary D Bader,et al.  BIND--The Biomolecular Interaction Network Database. , 2001, Nucleic acids research.

[17]  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.

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

[19]  S. Shen-Orr,et al.  Networks Network Motifs : Simple Building Blocks of Complex , 2002 .

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

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

[22]  S. Shen-Orr,et al.  Network motifs in the transcriptional regulation network of Escherichia coli , 2002, Nature Genetics.

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

[24]  S. Shen-Orr,et al.  Network motifs: simple building blocks of complex networks. , 2002, Science.

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

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

[27]  Gary D. Bader,et al.  An automated method for finding molecular complexes in large protein interaction networks , 2003, BMC Bioinformatics.

[28]  P. Bork,et al.  Genome evolution reveals biochemical networks and functional modules , 2003, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[29]  E. O’Shea,et al.  Global analysis of protein localization in budding yeast , 2003, Nature.

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

[32]  P. Brown,et al.  Widespread cytoplasmic mRNA transport in yeast: Identification of 22 bud-localized transcripts using DNA microarray analysis , 2003, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[33]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  Metabolic network analysis of the causes and evolution of enzyme dispensability in yeast , 2004 .

[34]  D. Siegmund,et al.  Stochastic model of protein-protein interaction: why signaling proteins need to be colocalized. , 2004, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[35]  Gary D Bader,et al.  Global Mapping of the Yeast Genetic Interaction Network , 2004, Science.

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

[37]  Lan V. Zhang,et al.  Evidence for dynamically organized modularity in the yeast protein–protein interaction network , 2004, Nature.

[38]  J. Bader,et al.  A robust toolkit for functional profiling of the yeast genome. , 2004, Molecular cell.

[39]  J. Stelling Mathematical models in microbial systems biology. , 2004, Current opinion in microbiology.

[40]  Peer Bork,et al.  Shared components of protein complexes--versatile building blocks or biochemical artefacts? , 2004, BioEssays : news and reviews in molecular, cellular and developmental biology.

[41]  Massimo Marchiori,et al.  Error and attacktolerance of complex network s , 2004 .

[42]  A. E. Hirsh,et al.  Adjusting for selection on synonymous sites in estimates of evolutionary distance. , 2005, Molecular biology and evolution.

[43]  C. Pál,et al.  Adaptive evolution of bacterial metabolic networks by horizontal gene transfer , 2005, Nature Genetics.

[44]  S. Coulomb,et al.  Gene essentiality and the topology of protein interaction networks , 2005, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[45]  Benjamin Audit,et al.  An exponential core in the heart of the yeast protein interaction network. , 2005, Molecular biology and evolution.

[46]  J. Doyle,et al.  Some protein interaction data do not exhibit power law statistics , 2005, FEBS letters.

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

[48]  J. Derisi,et al.  Single-cell proteomic analysis of S. cerevisiae reveals the architecture of biological noise , 2006, Nature.

[49]  P. Bork,et al.  Identification and analysis of evolutionarily cohesive functional modules in protein networks. , 2006, Genome research.

[50]  T. Ideker,et al.  Comprehensive curation and analysis of global interaction networks in Saccharomyces cerevisiae , 2006, Journal of biology.

[51]  Sean R. Collins,et al.  Global landscape of protein complexes in the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae , 2006, Nature.

[52]  Mike Tyers,et al.  Evolutionary and Physiological Importance of Hub Proteins , 2006, PLoS Comput. Biol..

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

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

[55]  Gabriele Ausiello,et al.  MINT: the Molecular INTeraction database , 2006, Nucleic Acids Res..

[56]  R. Tsien,et al.  Specificity and Stability in Topology of Protein Networks , 2022 .