Abstract
Rarely acting in isolation, it is invariably the physical associations among proteins that define their biological activity, necessitating the study of the cellular meshwork of protein–protein interactions (PPI) before a full appreciation of gene function can be achieved. The past few years have seen a marked expansion in the both the sheer volume and number of organisms for which high-quality interaction data is available, with high-throughput interaction screening and detection techniques showing consistent improvement both in scale and sensitivity. Although techniques for large-scale PPI map** are increasingly being applied to new organisms, including human, there is a corresponding need to rigorously evaluate, benchmark, and impartially filter the results. This chapter explores methods for PPI dataset evaluation, including a survey of previous techniques applied by landmark studies in the field and a discussion of promising new experimental approaches. We further outline practical suggestions and useful tools for interpreting newly generated PPI data. As the majority of large-scale experimental data has been generated for the budding yeast S. cerevisiae, most of the techniques and datasets described are from the perspective of this model unicellular eukaryote; however, extensions to other organisms including mammals are mentioned where possible.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Musso GA, Z Zhang, et al. (2007). Experimental and computational procedures for the assessment of protein complexes on a genome-wide scale. Chem Rev 1078: 3585–3600.
Sanderson CM (2009). The Cartographers toolbox: building bigger and better human protein interaction networks. Brief Funct Genomic Proteomic 81: 1–11.
Cagney G (2009). Interaction networks: lessons from large-scale studies in yeast. Proteomics 920: 4799–4811.
Fields S and O Song (1989). A novel genetic system to detect protein–protein interactions. Nature 3406230: 245–246.
Uetz P, L Giot, et al. (2000). A comprehensive analysis of protein–protein interactions in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Nature 4036770: 623–627.
Ito T, T Chiba, et al. (2001). A comprehensive two-hybrid analysis to explore the yeast protein interactome. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 988: 4569–4574.
von Mering C, R Krause, et al. (2002). Comparative assessment of large-scale data sets of protein–protein interactions. Nature 4176887: 399–403.
Ito T, K Ota, et al. (2002). Roles for the two-hybrid system in exploration of the yeast protein interactome. Mol Cell Proteomics 18: 561–566.
Yu H, P Braun, et al. (2008). High-quality binary protein interaction map of the yeast interactome network. Science 3225898: 104–110.
Vidalain PO, M Boxem, et al. (2004). Increasing specificity in high-throughput yeast two-hybrid experiments. Methods 324: 363–370.
Li S, CM Armstrong, et al. (2004). A map of the interactome network of the metazoan C. elegans. Science 3035657: 540–543.
Stanyon CA, G Liu, et al. (2004). A Drosophila protein-interaction map centered on cell-cycle regulators. Genome Biol 512: R96.
Formstecher E, S Aresta, et al. (2005). Protein interaction map**: a Drosophila case study. Genome Res 153: 376–384.
Rual JF, K Venkatesan, et al. (2005). Towards a proteome-scale map of the human protein–protein interaction network. Nature 4377062: 1173–1178.
Stelzl U, U Worm, et al. (2005). A human protein–protein interaction network: a resource for annotating the proteome. Cell 1226: 957–968.
Lievens S, I Lemmens, et al. (2009). Mammalian two-hybrids come of age. Trends Biochem Sci 3411: 579–588.
Suter B, S Kittanakom, et al. (2008). Two-hybrid technologies in proteomics research. Curr Opin Biotechnol 194: 316–323.
Walhout AJ and M Vidal (1999). A genetic strategy to eliminate self-activator baits prior to high-throughput yeast two-hybrid screens. Genome Res 911: 1128–1134.
Helbig AO, AJ Heck, et al. (2010). Exploring the membrane proteome – challenges and analytical strategies. J Proteomics 735: 868–878.
Johnsson N and A Varshavsky (1994). Split ubiquitin as a sensor of protein interactions in vivo. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 9122: 10340–10344.
Miller JP, RS Lo, et al. (2005). Large-scale identification of yeast integral membrane protein interactions. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 10234: 12123–12128.
Harris MA, J Clark, et al. (2004). The Gene Ontology (GO) database and informatics resource. Nucleic Acids Res 32Database issue: D258–261.
Tarassov K, V Messier, et al. (2008). An in vivo map of the yeast protein interactome. Science 3205882: 1465–1470.
Remy I and SW Michnick (1999). Clonal selection and in vivo quantitation of protein interactions with protein-fragment complementation assays. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 9610: 5394–5399.
Pelletier JN, KM Arndt, et al. (1999). An in vivo library-versus-library selection of optimized protein–protein interactions. Nat Biotechnol 177: 683–690.
Mewes HW, C Amid, et al. (2004). MIPS: analysis and annotation of proteins from whole genomes. Nucleic Acids Res 32Database issue: D41–44.
Fritze CE and TR Anderson (2000). Epitope tagging: general method for tracking recombinant proteins. Methods Enzymol 327: 3–16.
Puig O, F Caspary, et al. (2001). The tandem affinity purification (TAP) method: a general procedure of protein complex purification. Methods 243: 218–229.
Ho Y, A Gruhler, et al. (2002). Systematic identification of protein complexes in Saccharomyces cerevisiae by mass spectrometry. Nature 4156868: 180–183.
Krogan NJ, G Cagney, et al. (2006). Global landscape of protein complexes in the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Nature 4407084: 637–643.
Gavin AC, P Aloy, et al. (2006). Proteome survey reveals modularity of the yeast cell machinery. Nature 4407084: 631–636.
Goll J and P Uetz (2006). The elusive yeast interactome. Genome Biol 76: 223.
Collins SR, P Kemmeren, et al. (2007). Toward a comprehensive atlas of the physical interactome of Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Mol Cell Proteomics 63: 439–450.
Bader GD and CW Hogue (2002). Analyzing yeast protein–protein interaction data obtained from different sources. Nat Biotechnol 2010: 991–997.
Gavin AC, M Bosche, et al. (2002). Functional organization of the yeast proteome by systematic analysis of protein complexes. Nature 4156868: 141–147.
Jansen R and M Gerstein (2004). Analyzing protein function on a genomic scale: the importance of gold-standard positives and negatives for network prediction. Curr Opin Microbiol 75: 535–545.
Franzosa E, B Linghu, et al. (2009). Computational reconstruction of protein–protein interaction networks: algorithms and issues. Methods Mol Biol 541: 89–100.
Hu P, SC Janga, et al. (2009). Global functional atlas of Escherichia coli encompassing previously uncharacterized proteins. PLoS Biol 74: e96.
Skrabanek L, HK Saini, et al. (2008). Computational prediction of protein–protein interactions. Mol Biotechnol 381: 1–17.
Frank E, M Hall, et al. (2004). Data mining in bioinformatics using Weka. Bioinformatics 2015: 2479–2481.
Sing T, O Sander, et al. (2005). ROCR: visualizing classifier performance in R. Bioinformatics 2120: 3940–3941.
Shannon P, A Markiel, et al. (2003). Cytoscape: a software environment for integrated models of biomolecular interaction networks. Genome Res 1311: 2498–2504.
Maere S, K Heymans, et al. (2005). BiNGO: a Cytoscape plugin to assess overrepresentation of gene ontology categories in biological networks. Bioinformatics 2116: 3448–3449.
Cline MS, M Smoot, et al. (2007). Integration of biological networks and gene expression data using Cytoscape. Nat Protoc 210: 2366–2382.
Vlasblom J, S Wu, et al. (2006). GenePro: a Cytoscape plug-in for advanced visualization and analysis of interaction networks. Bioinformatics 2217: 2178–2179.
Rivera CG, R Vakil, et al. (2010). NeMo: Network Module identification in Cytoscape. BMC Bioinformatics 11 Suppl 1: S61.
Yeung N, MS Cline, et al. (2008). Exploring biological networks with Cytoscape software. Curr Protoc Bioinformatics Chapter 8: Unit 8 13.
Acknowledgments
AE and ZZ acknowledge a Team Grant from the Canadian Institute of Health Research (CIHR MOP#82940).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2011 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC
About this protocol
Cite this protocol
Musso, G., Emili, A., Zhang, Z. (2011). Filtering and Interpreting Large-Scale Experimental Protein–Protein Interaction Data. In: Cagney, G., Emili, A. (eds) Network Biology. Methods in Molecular Biology, vol 781. Humana Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-61779-276-2_14
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-61779-276-2_14
Published:
Publisher Name: Humana Press
Print ISBN: 978-1-61779-275-5
Online ISBN: 978-1-61779-276-2
eBook Packages: Springer Protocols