Advanced search
Publication Cover
Expert Review of Proteomics Volume 10, 2013 - Issue 6
Submit an article Journal homepage
360
Views
15
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Reviews

Protein–protein interaction networks studies and importance of 3D structure knowledge

Hui-Chun LuRandall Division of Cell and Molecular Biophysics, King’s College London, New Hunt’s House, London SE1 1UL, UK
,
Arianna ForniliRandall Division of Cell and Molecular Biophysics, King’s College London, New Hunt’s House, London SE1 1UL, UK
&
Franca FraternaliRandall Division of Cell and Molecular Biophysics, King’s College London, New Hunt’s House, London SE1 1UL, UKCorrespondence[email protected]
Pages 511-520 | Published online: 09 Jan 2014

References

  • Feldman I, Rzhetsky A, Vitkup D. Network properties of genes harboring inherited disease mutations. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105(11), 4323–4328 (2008).
  • Glaab E, Baudot A, Krasnogor N, Valencia A. Extending pathways and processes using molecular interaction networks to analyse cancer genome data. BMC Bioinformatics 11, 597 (2010).
  • Carlin LM, Evans R, Milewicz H et al. A targeted siRNA screen identifies regulators of Cdc42 activity at the natural killer cell immunological synapse. Sci. Signal. 4(201), ra81 (2011).
  • Bakal C, Linding R, Llense F et al. Phosphorylation networks regulating JNK activity in diverse genetic backgrounds. Science 322(5900), 453–456 (2008).
  • Yamada T, Bork P. Evolution of biomolecular networks: lessons from metabolic and protein interactions. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 10(11), 791–803 (2009).
  • Gursoy A, Keskin O, Nussinov R. Topological properties of protein interaction networks from a structural perspective. Biochem. Soc. Trans. 36(Pt. 6), 1398–1403 (2008).
  • Jonsson PF, Bates PA. Global topological features of cancer proteins in the human interactome. Bioinformatics 22(18), 2291–2297 (2006).
  • Rambaldi D, Giorgi FM, Capuani F, Ciliberto A, Ciccarelli FD. Low duplicability and network fragility of cancer genes. Trends. Genet. 24(9), 427–430 (2008).
  • Goh KI, Cusick ME, Valle D, Childs B, Vidal M, Barabási AL. The human disease network. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 104(21), 8685–8690 (2007).
  • Karaoz U, Murali TM, Letovsky S et al. Whole-genome annotation by using evidence integration in functional-linkage networks. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 101(9), 2888–2893 (2004).
  • Nabieva E, Jim K, Agarwal A, Chazelle B, Singh M. Whole-proteome prediction of protein function via graph-theoretic analysis of interaction maps. Bioinformatics 21(Suppl. 1), i302–i310 (2005).
  • Benfey PN, Mitchell-Olds T. From genotype to phenotype: systems biology meets natural variation. Science 320(5875), 495–497 (2008).
  • Arabidopsis Interactome Mapping Consortium. Evidence for network evolution in an arabidopsis interactome map. Science 333(6042), 601–607 (2011).
  • Lee I, Seo YS, Coltrane D et al. Genetic dissection of the biotic stress response using a genome-scale gene network for rice. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108(45), 18548–18553 (2011).
  • Kuzu G, Keskin O, Gursoy A, Nussinov R. Constructing structural networks of signaling pathways on the proteome scale. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 22(3), 367–377 (2012).
  • Kanehisa M, Goto S, Sato Y, Furumichi M, Tanabe M. KEGG for integration and interpretation of large-scale molecular data sets. Nucleic Acids Res. 40(Database issue):D109–D114 (2012).
  • Feng J, Kim ST, Liu W et al. An integrated analysis of germline and somatic, genetic and epigenetic alterations at 9p21.3 in glioblastoma. Cancer 118(1), 232–240 (2012).
  • Mathew JP, Taylor BS, Bader GD et al. From bytes to bedside: data integration and computational biology for translational cancer research. PLoS Comput. Biol. 3(2), e12 (2007).
  • Aloy P, Russell RB. Interrogating protein interaction networks through structural biology. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 99(9), 5896–5901 (2002).
  • Aloy P, Böttcher B, Ceulemans H et al. Structure-based assembly of protein complexes in yeast. Science 303(5666), 2026–2029 (2004).
  • Robinson CV, Sali A, Baumeister W. The molecular sociology of the cell. Nature 450(7172), 973–982 (2007).
  • Alber F, Dokudovskaya S, Veenhoff LM et al. Determining the architectures of macromolecular assemblies. Nature 450(7170), 683–694 (2007).
  • Mosca R, Céol A, Aloy P. Interactome3D: adding structural details to protein networks. Nat. Methods. 10(1), 47–53 (2012).
  • Meyer MJ, Das J, Wang X, Yu H. INstruct: a database of high-quality 3D structurally resolved protein interactome networks. Bioinformatics 29(12), 1577–1579 (2013).
  • Bockler B, Bateman A. Protein interactions in human genetic diseases. Genome Biol. 9(1), R9 (2008).
  • Wang X, Wei X, Thijssen B, Das J, Lipkin SM, Yu H. Three-dimensional reconstruction of protein networks provides insight into human genetic disease. Nat. Biotechnol. 30(2), 159–164 (2012).
  • Nishi H, Tyagi M, Teng S et al. Cancer missense mutations alter binding properties of proteins and their interaction networks. PLoS ONE 8(6), e66273 (2013).
  • Lees JG, Heriche JK, Morilla I, Ranea JA, Orengo CA. Systematic computational prediction of protein interaction networks. Phys. Biol. 8(3), 035008 (2011).
  • Hooda Y, Kim PM. Computational structural analysis of protein interactions and networks. Proteomics 12(10), 1697–1705 (2012).
  • Yue P, Li Z, Moult J. Loss of protein structure stability as a major causative factor in monogenic disease. J. Mol. Biol. 353(2), 459–473 (2005).
  • Studer RA, Dessailly BH, Orengo CA. Residue mutations and their impact on protein structure and function: detecting beneficial and pathogenic changes. Biochem. J. 449(3), 581–594 (2013).
  • Satoh T, Smith A, Sarde A et al. B-RAF mutant alleles associated with Langerhans cell histiocytosis, a granulomatous pediatric disease. PLoS ONE 7(4), e33891 (2012).
  • Keskin O, Ma B, Nussinov R. Hot regions in protein-protein interactions: the organization and contribution of structurally conserved hot spot residues. J. Mol. Biol. 345(5), 1281–1294 (2005).
  • Bogan AA, Thorn KS. Anatomy of hot spots in protein interfaces. J. Mol. Biol. 280(1), 1–9 (1998).
  • Liu J, Nussinov R. Allosteric effects in the marginally stable von Hippel-Lindau tumor suppressor protein and allostery-based rescue mutant design. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105(3), 901–906 (2008).
  • Nussinov R, Tsai CJ. Allostery in disease and in drug discovery. Cell 153(2), 293–305 (2013).
  • Shan Y, Eastwood MP, Zhang X et al. Oncogenic mutations counteract intrinsic disorder in the EGFR kinase and promote receptor dimerization. Cell 149(4), 860–870 (2012).
  • Azam M, Seeliger MA, Gray NS, Kuriyan J, Daley GQ. Activation of tyrosine kinases by mutation of the gatekeeper threonine. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 15(10), 1109–1118 (2008).
  • Blundell TL, Sibanda BL, Montalvão RW et al. Structural biology and bioinformatics in drug design: opportunities and challenges for target identification and lead discovery. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 361(1467), 413–423 (2006).
  • Azzarito V, Long K, Murphy NS, Wilson AJ. Inhibition of -helix-mediated protein-protein interactions using designed molecules. Nat. Chem. 5, 161–173 (2013).
  • Kastritis PL, Bonvin AM. On the binding affinity of macromolecular interactions: daring to ask why proteins interact. J. R. Soc. Interface 10(79), 20120835 (2013).
  • Wells JA, McClendon CL. Reaching for high-hanging fruit in drug discovery at protein-protein interfaces. Nature 450(7172), 1001–1009 (2007).
  • Winter C, Henschel A, Tuukkanen A, Schroeder M. Protein interactions in 3D: from interface evolution to drug discovery. J. Struct. Biol. 179(3), 347–358 (2012).
  • Keskin O, Gursoy A, Ma B, Nussinov R. Principles of protein-protein interactions: what are the preferred ways for proteins to interact? Chem. Rev. 108(4), 1225–1244 (2008).
  • Engin HB, Gursoy A, Nussinov R, Keskin O. Network-based strategies can help mono- and poly-pharmacology drug discovery: a systems biology view. Curr. Pharm. Des. doi:10.2174/13816128113199990066 (2013) (Epub ahead of print).
  • Engin HB, Keskin O, Nussinov R, Gursoy A. A strategy based on protein-protein interface motifs may help in identifying drug off-targets. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 52(8), 2273–2286 (2012).
  • Csermely P, Korcsmáros T, Kiss HJM, London G, Nussinov R. Structure and dynamics of molecular networks: a novel paradigm of drug discovery: a comprehensive review. Pharmacol. Ther. 138(3), 333–408 (2013).
  • Kuhn M, Al Banchaabouchi M, Campillos M, et al. Systematic identification of proteins that elicit drug side effects. Mol. Syst. Biol. 9, 663 (2013).
  • Wu TY, Jen MH, Bottle A et al. Ten-year trends in hospital admissions for adverse drug reactions in England 1999-2009. J. R. Soc. Med. 103(6), 239–250 (2010).
  • Yildirim MA, Goh KI, Cusick ME, Barabási AL, Vidal M. Drug-target network. Nat. Biotechnol. 25(10), 1119–1126 (2007).
  • Zhang Q, Petrey D, Norel R, Honig B. Protein interface conservation across structure space. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107(24), 10896–10901 (2010).
  • Kundrotas PJ, Zhu Z, Janin J, Vakser IA. Templates are available to model nearly all complexes of structurally characterized proteins. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109(24), 9438–9441 (2012).
  • Marti-Renom MA, Madhusudhan MS, Fiser A, Rost B, Sali A. Reliability of assessment of protein structure prediction methods. Structure 10(3), 435–440 (2001).
  • Schwede T. Protein modeling: what happened to the “protein structure gap”? Structure 21(9), 1531–1540 (2013).
  • Krogan NJ, Cagney G, Yu H et al. Global landscape of protein complexes in the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Nature 440(7084), 637–643 (2006).
  • Stumpf MPH, Thorne T, de Silva E et al. Estimating the size of the human interactome. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105(19), 6959–6964 (2008).
  • Lehne B, Schlitt T. Protein-protein interaction databases: keeping up with growing interactomes. Hum. Genomics 3(3), 291–297 (2009).
  • Keshava Prasad TS, Goel R, Kandasamy K et al. Human protein reference database-2009 update. Nucleic Acids Res. 37, D767–D772 (2009).
  • Chatr Aryamontri A, Breitkreutz BJ, Heinicke S et al. The BioGRID interaction database: 2013 update. Nucleic Acids Res. 41, D816–D823 (2013).
  • Salwinski L, Miller CS, Smith AJ, Pettit FK, Bowie JU, Eisenberg D. The database of interacting proteins: 2004 update. Nucleic Acids Res. 32, D449–D451 (2004).
  • Kerrien S, Aranda B, Breuza L et al. The IntAct molecular interaction database in 2012. Nucleic Acids Res. 40, D841–D846 (2012).
  • Ceol A, Chatr Aryamontri A, Licata L et al. MINT, the molecular interaction database: 2009 update. Nucleic Acids Res. 38, D532–D539 (2009).
  • Franceschini A, Szklarczyk D, Frankild S et al. STRING v9.1: protein-protein interaction networks, with increased coverage and integration. Nucleic Acids Res. 41, D808–D815 (2013).
  • Braun P. Reproducibility restored – on toward the human interactome. Nat. Methods 10(4), 301–303 (2013).
  • Varjosalo M, Sacco R, Stukalov A et al. Interlaboratory reproducibility of large-scale human protein-complex analysis by standardized AP-MS. Nat. Methods 10(4), 307–314 (2013).
  • Havugimana PC, Hart GT, Nepusz T et al. A census of human soluble protein complexes. Cell 150(5), 1068–1081 (2012).
  • Braun P, Tasan M, Dreze M et al. An experimentally derived confidence score for binary protein-protein interactions. Nat. Methods 6(1), 91–97 (2009).
  • Jain S, Bader GD. An improved method for scoring protein-protein interactions using semantic similarity within the gene ontology. BMC Bioinformatics 11, 562 (2010).
  • Dazard JE, Saha S, Ewing RM. ROCS: A reproducibility index and confidence score for interaction proteomics studies. BMC Bioinformatics 13, 128(2012).
  • Hakes L, Pinney JW, Robertson DL, Lovell SC. Protein-protein interaction networks and biology – what’s the connection? Nat. Biotechnol. 26(1), 69–72 (2008).
  • Mosca R, Pons T, Céol A, Valencia A, Aloy P. Towards a detailed atlas of protein-protein interactions. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. doi:10.1016/j.sbi.2013.07.005 (2013) (Epub ahead of print).
  • von Mering C, Krause R, Snel B et al. Comparative assessment of large-scale data sets of protein-protein interactions. Nature 417(6887), 399–403 (2002).
  • Orchard S, Kerrien S, Abbani S et al. Protein interaction data curation: the International Molecular Exchange (IMEx) consortium. Nat. Meth. 9(4), 345–350 (2012).
  • Orchard S. Molecular interaction databases. Proteomics 12(10), 1656–1662 (2012).
  • Gavin AC, Aloy P, Grandi P et al. Proteome survey reveals modularity of the yeast cell machinery. Nature 440(7084), 631–636 (2006).
  • de Juan D, Pazos F, Valencia A. Emerging methods in protein co-evolution. Nat. Rev. Genet. 14(4), 249–261 (2013).
  • Zhang QC, Petrey D, Deng L et al. Structure-based prediction of protein-protein interactions on a genome-wide scale. Nature. 490(7421), 556–560 (2012).
  • Berman HM. The protein data bank. Nucleic Acids Res. 28(1), 235–242 (2000).
  • Finn RD, Marshall M, Bateman A. iPfam: visualization of protein-protein interactions in PDB at domain and amino acid resolutions. Bioinformatics. 21(3), 410–412 (2005).
  • Stein A, Céol A, Aloy P. 3did: identification and classification of domain based interactions of known three-dimensional structure. Nucleic Acids Res. 39(Database issue), D718–D723 (2011).
  • Punta M, Coggill P, Eberhardt R et al. The Pfam protein families database. Nucleic Acids Res. 40(Database issue), D290–D301 (2012).
  • Vogel C, Teichmann S, Pereiraleal J. The relationship between domain duplication and recombination. J Mol Biol. 346(1), 355–365 (2005).
  • Eswar N, Webb B, Marti-Renom MA et al. Comparative protein structure modeling using MODELLER. Curr. Protoc. Protein Sci. Chapter 2, Unit 2.9 (2007).
  • Lewis TE, Sillitoe I, Andreeva A et al. Genome3D: a UK collaborative project to annotate genomic sequences with predicted 3D structures based on SCOP and CATH domains. Nucleic Acids Res. 41(Database issue), D499–D507 (2013).
  • Lees J, Yeats C, Redfern O, Clegg A, Orengo C. Gene3D: merging structure and function for a Thousand genomes. Nucleic Acids Res. 38(Database issue), D296–D300 (2010).
  • Shi J, Blundell TL, Mizuguchi K. FUGUE: sequence-structure homology recognition using environment-specific substitution tables and structure-dependent gap penalties. J Mol Biol. 310(1), 243–257 (2001).
  • Gough J, Chothia C. SUPERFAMILY: HMMs representing all proteins of known structure. SCOP sequence searches, alignments and genome assignments. Nucleic Acids Res. 30(1), 268–272 (2002).
  • Bennett-Lovsey RM, Herbert AD, Sternberg MJE, Kelley LA. Exploring the extremes of sequence/structure space with ensemble fold recognition in the program Phyre. Proteins 70(3), 611–625 (2008).
  • Buchan DWA, Ward SM, Lobley AE, Nugent TCO, Bryson K, Jones DT. Protein annotation and modelling servers at University College London. Nucleic Acids Res. 38(Web Server issue), W563–W568 (2010).
  • Kar G, Gursoy A, Keskin O. Human cancer protein-protein interaction network: a structural perspective. PLoS Comput. Biol. 5(12), e1000601 (2009).
  • Tuncbag N, Gursoy A, Nussinov R, Keskin O. Predicting protein-protein interactions on a proteome scale by matching evolutionary and structural similarities at interfaces using PRISM. Nat. Protoc. 6(9), 1341–1354 (2011).
  • Zhang X, Perica T, Teichmann SA. Evolution of protein structures and interactions from the perspective of residue contact networks. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. pii: S0959-440X(13)00125-5 (2013).
  • Gao M, Skolnick J. Structural space of protein-protein interfaces is degenerate, close to complete, and highly connected. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107(52), 22517–22522 (2010).
  • Lo Conte L, Chothia C, Janin J. The atomic structure of protein-protein recognition sites. J. Mol. Biol. 285(5), 2177–2198 (1999).
  • Keskin O, Ma B, Rogale K, Gunasekaran K, Nussinov R. Protein-protein interactions: organization, cooperativity and mapping in a bottom-up Systems Biology approach. Phys. Biol. 2(2), S24–S35 (2005).
  • Higurashi M, Ishida T, Kinoshita K. Identification of transient hub proteins and the possible structural basis for their multiple interactions. Protein Sci. 17(1), 72–78 (2008).
  • Keskin O, Nussinov R. Similar binding sites and different partners: implications to shared proteins in cellular pathways. Structure 15(3), 341–354 (2007).
  • Zhu X, Mitchell JC. KFC2: a knowledge-based hot spot prediction method based on interface solvation, atomic density, and plasticity features. Proteins 79(9), 2671–2683 (2011).
  • Jones S, Thornton JM. Protein-protein interactions: a review of protein dimmer structures. Prog. Biophys. Mol. Biol. 63(1), 31–65 (1995).
  • Kleinjung J, Fraternali F. POPSCOMP: an automated interaction analysis of biomolecular complexes. Nucleic Acids Res. 33(Web Server issue), W342–W346 (2005).
  • Davis F, Sali A. PIBASE: a comprehensive database of structurally defined protein interfaces. Bioinformatics 21(9), 1901–1907 (2005).
  • Mashiach E, Nussinov R, Wolfson HJ. FiberDock: a web server for flexible induced-fit backbone refinement in molecular docking. Nucleic Acids Res. 38(Web Server issue), W457–W461 (2010).
  • Kim P, Lu L, Xia Y, Gerstein M. Relating three-dimensional structures to protein networks provides evolutionary insights. Science. 314(5807), 1938–1941 (2006).
  • Butland G, Peregrín-Alvarez JM, Li J et al. Interaction network containing conserved and essential protein complexes in Escherichia coli. Nature. 433(7025), 531–537 (2005).
  • Ho H, Milenkovic T, Memisevic V, Aruri J, Przulj N, Ganesan AK. Protein interaction network topology uncovers melanogenesis regulatory network components within functional genomics datasets. BMC Syst. Biol. 4(1), 84 (2010).
  • David A, Razali R, Wass MN, Sternberg MJE. Protein-protein interaction sites are hot spots for disease-associated nonsynonymous SNPs. Hum. Mutat. 33(2), 359–363 (2011).
  • Guo Y, Wei X, Das J et al. Dissecting disease inheritance modes in a three- dimensional protein network challenges the guilt-by-association principle. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 93(1), 78–89 (2013).
  • Patil A, Kinoshita K, Nakamura H. Hub promiscuity in protein-protein interaction networks. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 11(4), 1930–1943 (2010).
  • Tyagi M, Shoemaker BA, Bryant SH, Panchenko AR. Exploring functional roles of multibinding protein interfaces. Protein Sci. 18(8), 1674–1683 (2009).
  • Dasgupta B, Nakamura H, Kinjo AR. Distinct roles of overlapping and nonoverlapping regions of hub protein interfaces in recognition of multiple partners. J. Mol. Biol. 411(3), 713–727 (2011).
  • Fornili A, Pandini A, Lu H, Fraternali F. Specialized dynamical properties of promiscuous residues revealed by simulated conformational ensembles. J. Chem. Theory Comput. (2013) (Epub before print).
  • Zen A, Micheletti C, Keskin O, Nussinov R. Comparing interfacial dynamics in protein-protein complexes: an elastic network approach. BMC Struct. Biol. 10, 26 (2010).
  • Spitzer R, Cleves A, Jain A. Surface-based protein binding pocket similarity. Proteins 79(9), 2746–2763 (2011).
  • Wass MN, Fuentes G, Pons C, Pazos F, Valencia A. Towards the prediction of protein interaction partners using physical docking. Mol. Syst. Biol. 7, 469 (2011).
  • 1000 Genomes Project Consortium, Abecasis GR, Altshuler D, Auton A et al. A map of human genome variation from population-scale sequencing. Nature 467(7319), 1061–1073 (2010).
  • International HapMap Consortium. The international hapMap project. Nature 426(6968), 789–796 (2003).
  • Sherry ST, Ward MH, Kholodov M et al. dbSNP: the NCBI database of genetic variation. Nucleic Acids Res. 29(1), 308–311 (2001).
  • Hamosh A. Online mendelian inheritance in man (OMIM), a knowledgebase of human genes and genetic disorders. Nucleic Acids Res. 33(Database issue), D514–D517 (2004).
  • Forbes SA, Bindal N, Bamford S, et al. COSMIC: mining complete cancer genomes in the Catalogue of Somatic Mutations in Cancer. Nucleic Acids Res. 39(Database issue), D945–D950 (2011).
  • Stenson PD, Ball EV, Mort M et al. Human gene mutation database (HGMD): 2003 update. Hum. Mutat. 21(6), 577–581 (2003).
  • Stefl S, Nishi H, Petukh M, Panchenko AR, Alexov E. Molecular mechanisms of disease-causing missense mutations. J. Mol. Biol. 425(21), 3919–3936 (2013).
  • Higueruelo AP, Jubb H, Blundell TL. Protein-protein interactions as druggable targets: recent technological advances. Curr. Opin. Pharmacol. 13(5), 791–796 (2013).

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Order Reprints Request Corporate Permissions

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

Request Academic Permissions

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.

Related research

People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read.

Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine.

Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations.
Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab.