1 / 40

Biological networks: Types and sources

Biological networks: Types and sources. Protein-protein interactions, Protein complexes, and network properties. Networks in electronics. Lazebnik, Cancer Cell, 2002. Model Generation. Interactions. Sequencing Gene knock-out Microarrays etc. YER001W YBR088C YOL007C YPL127C

baby
Download Presentation

Biological networks: Types and sources

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Biological networks:Types and sources Protein-protein interactions, Protein complexes, and network properties

  2. Networks in electronics Lazebnik, Cancer Cell, 2002

  3. Model Generation Interactions • Sequencing • Gene knock-out • Microarrays • etc. YER001W YBR088C YOL007C YPL127C YNR009W YDR224C YDL003W YBL003C … YDR097C YBR089W YBR054W YMR215W YBR071W YBL002W YNL283C YGR152C … Parts List • Genetic interactions • Protein-Protein interactions • Protein-DNA interactions • Subcellular Localization Interactions • Microarrays • Proteomics • Metabolomics Dynamics Lazebnik, Cancer Cell, 2002

  4. Types of networks

  5. Protein-protein interactions Protein-DNA interactions Genetic interactions Metabolic reactions Co-expression interactions Text mining interactions Association networks Interaction networks in molecular biology

  6. Approaches by interaction/method type • Physical Interactions • Yeast two hybrid screens (PPI) • Affinity purification mass spectrometry, APMS (PPI) • Protein complementation assays (PPI) • ChIP-Seq, ChIP-Chip (protein-DNA) • CLIP-Seq, RIP-Seq, HITS-CLIP, PAR-CLIP (protein-RNA) • Other measures of ‘association’ • Genetic interactions (double deletion mutants) • Co-expression • Functional associations • STRING (which includes many of the above and more)

  7. Yeast two-hybrid method Y2H assays interactions in vivo. Uses property that transcription factors generally have separable transcriptional activation (AD) and DNA binding (DBD) domains. A functional transcription factor can be created if a separately expressed AD can be made to interact with a DBD. A protein ‘bait’ B is fused to a DBD and screened against a library of protein “preys”, each fused to a AD.

  8. Issues with Y2H • Strengths • Takes place in vivo • Independent of endogenous expression • Weaknesses: False positive interactions • Detects “possible interactions” that may not take place under physiological conditions • May identify indirect interactions (A-C-B) • Weaknesses: False negatives interactions • Similar studies often reveal very different sets of interacting proteins (i.e. False negatives) • May miss PPIs that require other factors to be present (e.g. ligands, proteins, PTMs)

  9. Protein complementation assay (PCA)

  10. Protein interactions by immunoprecipitation followed by mass spectrometry (APMS) • Start with affinity purification of a single epitope-tagged protein • This enriched sample typically has a low enough complexity to be fractionated by electrophoresis techniques

  11. Affinity Purification Mass Spec • Strengths • High specificity • Well suited for detecting permanent or strong transient interactions (complexes) • Detects real, physiologically relevant PPIs • Weaknesses • Lower sensitivity: Less suited for detecting weaker transient interactions • May miss complexes not present under the given experimental conditions (low sensitivity) • May identify indirect interactions (A-C-B)

  12. Recent binary PPI network Y2H by Yu et al. 2008 : 2018 proteins, 2930 interactions PCA by Tarassov et al. 2008 : 1124 proteins, 2770 interactions

  13. Other characterizations of physical interactions • Obligation • obligate (only found/function together) • non-obligate (can exist/function alone) • Time of interaction • permanent (complexes, often obligate) • strong transient (require trigger, e.g. G proteins) • weak transient (dynamic equilibrium) • Location/compartmentalization constraints • Same/different cellular compartment • Tissue specificity

  14. Growth of PPI data: IntAct Statistics

  15. IntAct Statistics

  16. IntAct Statistics

  17. iRefIndex integration of PPI DBshttp://irefindex.uio.no/wiki/iRefIndex

  18. Human PPI network

  19. Filtering by subcellular localization de Lichtenberg et al., Science, 2005

  20. D A B C High confidence (1 unshared interaction partners) Low confidence (4 unshared interaction partners) An example binary-interaction score • For the yeast two-hybrid experiments, the reliability of an interaction has been found to correlate well with the number of non-shared interaction partners for each interactor [6]. This can be summarized in the following raw quality score • where NA and NB are the numbers of non-shared interaction partners for an interaction between protein A and B.

  21. An example “pull-down” interaction score • For APMS or other IP pull-down experiments, the reliability of the inferred binary interactions has been found to correlate better with the number of times the proteins were co-purified vs. purified individually. • where: • NAB is the number of purifications containing both proteins, i.e. the intersection of experiments that find them, • NAB is the total number of purifications that find either A or B, i.e. the union of experiments that find them, • NA is the number of purifications containing A, and • NB is the numbers of purifications containing B

  22. Filtering reduces coverage and increases specificity

  23. Network Properties Graphs, paths, topology

  24. Graphs • Graph G=(V,E) is a set of vertices V and edges E • A subgraph G’ of G is induced by some V’V and E’ E • Graph properties: • Connectivity (node degree, paths) • Cyclic vs. acyclic • Directed vs. undirected

  25. Sparse vs Dense • G(V, E) • Where |V|=n the number of vertices • And |E|=m the number of edges • Graph is sparse if m ~ n • Graph is dense if m ~ n2 • Complete graph when m = (n2-n)/2 ~ n2

  26. Connected Components • G(V,E) • |V| = 69 • |E| = 71

  27. Connected Components • G(V,E) • |V| = 69 • |E| = 71 • 6 connected components

  28. Paths A path is a sequence {x1, x2,…, xn} such that (x1,x2), (x2,x3), …, (xn-1,xn) are edges of the graph. A closed path xn=x1 on a graph is called a graph cycle or circuit.

  29. Shortest-Path between nodes

  30. Shortest-Path between nodes

  31. Longest Shortest-Path

  32. Degree or connectivity Barabási AL, Oltvai ZN. Network biology: understanding the cell's functional organization. Nat Rev Genet. 2004 Feb;5(2):101-13

  33. Random vs scale-free networks P(k) is probability of each degree k, i.e fraction of nodes having that degree. For random networks, P(k) is normally distributed. For real networks the distribution is often a power-law: P(k) ~ k-g Such networks are said to be scale-free Barabási AL, Oltvai ZN. Network biology: understanding the cell's functional organization. Nat Rev Genet. 2004 Feb;5(2):101-13

  34. Essentiality vs node degree

  35. Clustering coefficient The density of the network surrounding node I, characterized as the number of triangles through I. Related to network modularity k: neighbors of I nI: edges between node I’s neighbors The center node has 8 neighbors (green) There are 4 edges between these neighbors C = 1/7

  36. Proteins subunits are highly interconnected and thus have a high clustering coefficient There exists algorithms, such as MCODE, for identifying subnetworks (complexes) in large protein-protein interaction networks Protein complexes have a high clustering coefficient

  37. Hierarchical Networks Barabási AL, Oltvai ZN. Nat Rev Genet. 2004

  38. Detecting hierarchical organization Barabási AL, Oltvai ZN. Nat Rev Genet. 2004

  39. Scale-free networks are robust • Complex systems (cell, internet, social networks), are resilient to component failure • Network topology plays an important role in this robustness • Even if ~80% of nodes fail, the remaining ~20% still maintain network connectivity • Attack vulnerability if hubs are selectively targeted

  40. Other interesting features • Cellular networks are assortative, i.e. hubs tend not to interact directly with other hubs. • Hubs have been claimed to be “older” proteins (so far claimed for protein-protein interaction networks only) • Hubs also seem to have more evolutionary pressure—their protein sequences are more conserved than average between species (shown in yeast vs. worm)

More Related