Describing Biological Protein Interactions in Terms of Protein States and State Transitions

Biological protein-protein interactions differ from the more general class of physical interactions; in a biological interaction, both proteins must be in their proper states (e.g. covalently modified state, conformational state, cellular location state, etc.). Also in every biological interaction, one or both interacting molecules undergo a transition to a new state. This regulation of protein states through protein-protein interactions underlies many dynamic biological processes inside cells. Therefore, understanding biological interactions requires information on protein states. Toward this goal, DIP (the Database of Interacting Proteins) has been expanded to LiveDIP, which describes protein interactions by protein states and state transitions. This additional level of characterization permits a more complete picture of the protein-protein interaction networks and is crucial to an integrated understanding of genome-scale biology. The search tools provided by LiveDIP, Pathfinder, and Batch Search allow users to assemble biological pathways from all the protein-protein interactions collated from the scientific literature in LiveDIP. Tools have also been developed to integrate the protein-protein interaction networks of LiveDIP with large scale genomic data such as microarray data. An example of these tools applied to analyzing the pheromone response pathway in yeast suggests that the pathway functions in the context of a complex protein-protein interaction network. Seven of the eleven proteins involved in signal transduction are under negative or positive regulation of up to five other proteins through biological protein-protein interactions. During pheromone response, the mRNA expression levels of these signaling proteins exhibit different time course profiles. There is no simple correlation between changes in transcription levels and the signal intensity. This points to the importance of proteomic studies to understand how cells modulate and integrate signals. Integrating large scale, yeast two-hybrid data with mRNA expression data suggests biological interactions that may participate in pheromone response. These examples illustrate how LiveDIP provides data and tools for biological pathway discovery and pathway analysis.

[1]  Elizabeth J. Goldsmith,et al.  Activation Mechanism of the MAP Kinase ERK2 by Dual Phosphorylation , 1997, Cell.

[2]  R. Deschenes,et al.  Differential regulation of FUS3 MAP kinase by tyrosine-specific phosphatases PTP2/PTP3 and dual-specificity phosphatase MSG5 in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. , 1997, Genes & development.

[3]  Robert A. Arkowitz,et al.  A Small Conserved Domain in the Yeast Spa2p Is Necessary and Sufficient for Its Polarized Localization , 1997, The Journal of cell biology.

[4]  David Y. Thomas,et al.  Cell Cycle- and Cln2p-Cdc28p-dependent Phosphorylation of the Yeast Ste20p Protein Kinase* , 1998, The Journal of Biological Chemistry.

[5]  M. Gustin,et al.  MAP Kinase Pathways in the YeastSaccharomyces cerevisiae , 1998, Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews.

[6]  D. Eisenberg,et al.  A combined algorithm for genome-wide prediction of protein function , 1999, Nature.

[7]  K. Blumer,et al.  Dual Lipid Modification Motifs in Gα and Gγ Subunits Are Required for Full Activity of the Pheromone Response Pathway in Saccharomyces cerevisiae , 2000 .

[8]  S. Gygi,et al.  Measuring gene expression by quantitative proteome analysis. , 2000, Current opinion in biotechnology.

[9]  J. Heyman,et al.  The Transcriptional Response of Yeast to Saline Stress* , 2000, The Journal of Biological Chemistry.

[10]  T. Hughes,et al.  Signaling and circuitry of multiple MAPK pathways revealed by a matrix of global gene expression profiles. , 2000, Science.

[11]  K. Blumer,et al.  Dual lipid modification motifs in G(alpha) and G(gamma) subunits are required for full activity of the pheromone response pathway in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. , 2000, Molecular biology of the cell.

[12]  B. Schwikowski,et al.  A network of protein–protein interactions in yeast , 2000, Nature Biotechnology.

[13]  S. Wodak,et al.  Representing and Analysing Molecular and Cellular Function Using the Computer , 2000, Biological chemistry.

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

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

[16]  Gary D. Bader,et al.  BIND-a data specification for storing and describing biomolecular interactions, molecular complexes and pathways , 2000, Bioinform..

[17]  E. Elion,et al.  Pheromone response, mating and cell biology. , 2000, Current opinion in microbiology.

[18]  Scientists signal the way forward. , 2001, Trends in genetics : TIG.

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

[20]  Roger E Bumgarner,et al.  Integrated genomic and proteomic analyses of a systematically perturbed metabolic network. , 2001, 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]  Ioannis Xenarios,et al.  Mining literature for protein-protein interactions , 2001, Bioinform..

[23]  Uwe Reyle,et al.  Developing a Protein-Interactions Ontology , 2003, Comparative and functional genomics.