Influence of degree correlations on network structure and stability in protein-protein interaction networks

BackgroundThe existence of negative correlations between degrees of interacting proteins is being discussed since such negative degree correlations were found for the large-scale yeast protein-protein interaction (PPI) network of Ito et al. More recent studies observed no such negative correlations for high-confidence interaction sets. In this article, we analyzed a range of experimentally derived interaction networks to understand the role and prevalence of degree correlations in PPI networks. We investigated how degree correlations influence the structure of networks and their tolerance against perturbations such as the targeted deletion of hubs.ResultsFor each PPI network, we simulated uncorrelated, positively and negatively correlated reference networks. Here, a simple model was developed which can create different types of degree correlations in a network without changing the degree distribution. Differences in static properties associated with degree correlations were compared by analyzing the network characteristics of the original PPI and reference networks. Dynamics were compared by simulating the effect of a selective deletion of hubs in all networks.ConclusionConsiderable differences between the network types were found for the number of components in the original networks. Negatively correlated networks are fragmented into significantly less components than observed for positively correlated networks. On the other hand, the selective deletion of hubs showed an increased structural tolerance to these deletions for the positively correlated networks. This results in a lower rate of interaction loss in these networks compared to the negatively correlated networks and a decreased disintegration rate. Interestingly, real PPI networks are most similar to the randomly correlated references with respect to all properties analyzed. Thus, although structural properties of networks can be modified considerably by degree correlations, biological PPI networks do not actually seem to make use of this possibility.

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

[2]  H. Lehrach,et al.  A Human Protein-Protein Interaction Network: A Resource for Annotating the Proteome , 2005, Cell.

[3]  S. L. Wong,et al.  Towards a proteome-scale map of the human protein–protein interaction network , 2005, Nature.

[4]  S. Wuchty.  Evolution and topology in the yeast protein interaction network. , 2004, Genome research.

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

[6]  Stefan Wuchty,et al.  Rich-Club Phenomenon in the Interactome of P. falciparum—Artifact or Signature of a Parasitic Life Style? , 2007, PloS one.

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

[8]  Duncan J. Watts,et al.  Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’ networks , 1998, Nature.

[9]  D. Fell,et al.  The small world inside large metabolic networks , 2000, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[10]  M. Tyers,et al.  Stratus Not Altocumulus: A New View of the Yeast Protein Interaction Network , 2006, PLoS biology.

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

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

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

[14]  V Latora,et al.  Efficient behavior of small-world networks. , 2001, Physical review letters.

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

[16]  M. Vidal,et al.  Effect of sampling on topology predictions of protein-protein interaction networks , 2005, Nature Biotechnology.

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

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

[19]  Caroline C. Friedel,et al.  Toward the complete interactome , 2006, Nature Biotechnology.

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

[21]  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.

[22]  M. Vignali,et al.  A protein interaction network of the malaria parasite Plasmodium falciparum , 2005, Nature.

[23]  James R. Knight,et al.  A Protein Interaction Map of Drosophila melanogaster , 2003, Science.

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

[25]  Caroline C. Friedel,et al.  Inferring topology from clustering coefficients in protein-protein interaction networks , 2006, BMC Bioinformatics.