Understanding the yeast proteome: a bioinformatics perspective

References

• Uetz P, Giot L, Cagney G etal. A comprehensive analysis of protein—protein interactions in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Nature 403,623–627 (2000).
   Google Scholar
• Ito T, Chiba T, Ozawa R et aL A comprehensive two-hybrid analysis to explore the yeast protein interactome. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci.USA 98,4569–4574 (2001).
   Google Scholar
• Schwikowski B, Uetz P, Fields S. A network of protein—protein interactions in yeast. Nature BiotechnoL 18,1257–1261 (2000).
   Google Scholar
• Tong AH, Lesage G, Bader GD et al. Global mapping of the yeast genetic interaction network. Science 303,808–813 (2004).
   Google Scholar
• Gavin AC, Bosche M, Krause R et aL Functional organization of the yeast proteome by systematic analysis of protein complexes. Nature 415,141–147 (2002).
   Google Scholar
• Ho Y, Gruhler A, Heilbut A et aL Systematic identification of protein complexes in Saccharomyces cerevisiae by mass spectrometry. Nature 415,180–183 (2002).
   Google Scholar
• Ghaemmaghami S, Huh WK, Bower K et al. Global analysis of protein expression in yeast. Nature 425,737–741 (2003).
   Google Scholar
• Huh WK, Falvo JV, Gerke LC et al. Global analysis of protein localization in budding yeast. Nature 425,686–691 (2003).
   Google Scholar
• Winzeler EA, Shoemaker DD, Astromoff A et al. Functional characterization of the S. cerevisiae genome by gene deletion and parallel analysis. Science 285,901–906 (1999).
   Google Scholar
• Giot L, Bader JS, Brouwer C et al. A protein interaction map of Drosophila melanogaster Science 302,1727–1736 (2003).
   Google Scholar
• Li S, Armstrong CM, Bertin N et al. A map of the interactome network of the metazoanC. elegans. Science 303,540–543 (2004).
   Google Scholar
• Albert R, Jeong H, Barabasi AL. Error and attack tolerance of complex networks. Nature 406,378–382 (1999).
   Google Scholar
• Jeong H, Mason SP, Barabasi AL, Oltvai ZN. Lethality and centrality in protein networks. Nature 411,41–42 (2001).
   Google Scholar
• Maslov S, Sneppen K. Specificity and stability in topology of protein networks. Science 296,910–913 (2002).
   Google Scholar
• Gomez SM, Lo SH, Rzhetsky A. Probabilistic prediction of unknown metabolic and signal-transduction networks. Genetics 159,1291–1298 (2001).
   Google Scholar
• Alm E, Arkin AR Biological networks. CUIT: Opin. Struct. Biol. 13,193–202 (2003).
   Google Scholar
• Mewes HW, Frishman D, Guldener U et al. MIPS: a database for genomes and protein sequences. Nudeic Acids Res. 30,31–34 (2002).
   Google Scholar
• Xenarios I, Salwinski L, Duan XQJ et al. DIP, the Database of Interacting Proteins: a research tool for studying cellular networks of protein interactions. Nucleic Acids Res. 30,303–305 (2002).
   Google Scholar
• Mrowka R, Patzak A, Herzel H. Is there a bias in proteome research? Genome Res. 11, 1971–1973 (2001).
   Google Scholar
• Sprinzak E, Sattath S, Margalit H. How reliable are experimental protein—protein interaction data?J. MoL Biol. 327,919–923 (2003).
   Google Scholar
• Edwards A, Kus B, Jansen R et al. Bridging structural biology and genomics: assessing protein interaction data with known complexes. Trends Genet. 18,529–536 (2002).
   Google Scholar
• Grigoriev A. A relationship between gene expression and protein interactions on the proteome scale: analysis of the bacteriophage T7 and the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Nucleic Adds Res. 29,3513–3519 (2001).
   Google Scholar
• Ge H, Liu Z, Church GM, Vidal M. Correlation between transcriptome and interactome mapping data from Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Nature Genet. 29, 482–486 (2001).
   Google Scholar
• Jansen R., Greenbaum D, Gerstein M. Relating whole-genome expression data with protein—protein interactions. Genome Res. 12,37–46 (2002).
   Google Scholar
• Kemmeren P, van Berkum NL, Vilo J et al. Protein interaction verification and functional annotation by integrated analysis of genome-scale data. MoL Cell 9, 1133–1143 (2002).
   Google Scholar
• Walhout AJ, Reboul J, Shtanko 0 et al. Integrating interactome, phenome and transcriptome mapping data for the C. e/egans germline. CUIT: Biol. 12, 1952-1958 (2002).
   Google Scholar
• von Mering C, Krause R, Snel B et al. Comparative assessment of large-scale data sets of protein—protein interactions. Nature 417,399–403 (2002).
   Google Scholar
• Jones S, Thornton JM. Principles of protein—protein interactions. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 93,13–20 (1996).
   Google Scholar
• Bock JR, Gough DA. Predicting protein—protein interactions from primary structure. Bioinformatics 17,455–460 (2001).
   Google Scholar
• Dandekar T, Snel B, Huynen M, Bork E Conservation of gene order: a fingerprint of proteins that physically interact. Trends Biochem. Sci. 23,324–328 (1998).
   Google Scholar
• Marcotte EM, Pellegrini M, Ng HL et aL Detecting protein function and protein—protein interactions from genome sequences. Science 285,751–753 (1999).
   Google Scholar
• Enright AJ, Iliopoulos I, Kyrpides NC, Ouzounis CA. Protein interaction maps for complete genomes based on gene fusion events. Nature 402,86–90 (1999).
   Google Scholar
• Pellegrini M, Marcotte EM, Thompson MJ, Eisenberg D, Yeates TO. Assigning protein functions by comparative genome analysis: protein phylogenetic profiles. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 96,4285–4288 (1999).
   Google Scholar
• Wu J, Kasif S, DeLisi C. Identification of functional links between genes using phylogenetic profiles. Bioinformatics 19, 1524–1530 (2003).
   Google Scholar
• Osterman A, Overbeek R. Missing genes in metabolic pathways: a comparative genomics approach. CUIT: Opin. Chem. Biol. 7,238–251 (2003).
   Google Scholar
• Park J, Lappe M, Teichmann SA. Mapping protein family interactions: intramolecular and intermolecular protein family interaction repertoires in the PDB and yeast. j MoL Biol. 307,929–938 (2001).
   Google Scholar
• Mulder NJ, Apweiler R, Attwood TK et aL The interpro database, 2003 brings increased coverage and new features. Nucleic Acids Res. 31,315–318 (2003).
   Google Scholar
• Sprinzak E, Margalit H. Correlated sequence-signatures as markers of protein—protein interaction. J. MoL 311,681-692 poly
   Google Scholar
• Bateman A, Birney E, Durbin R et aL The Pfam protein families database. Nucleic Acids Res. 28,263–266 (2000).
   Google Scholar
• Deng M, Mehta S, Sun F, Chen T. Inferring domain—domain interactions from protein—protein interactions. Genome Res. 12,1540–1548 (2002). Prediction of protein—protein interactions using maximum likelihood estimates and conserved patterns of domain—domain interaction.
   Google Scholar
• Newman JR, Wolf E, Kim PS. A computationally directed screen identifying interacting coiled coils from Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 97,13203–13208 (2000).
   Google Scholar
• Tong API, Drees B, Nardelli G et aL A combined experimental and computational strategy to define protein interaction networks for peptide recognition modules. Science, 295, 321–324 (2002).
   Google Scholar
• Jansen R, Lan N, Qian J, Gerstein M. Integration of genomic data sets to predict protein complexes in yeast. I Struct. Funct. Genomics 2,71–81 (2002).
   Google Scholar
• Jansen R, Yu H, Greenbaum D et al. A Bayesian networks approach for predicting protein—protein interactions from genomic data. Science 302,449–453 (2003).
   Google Scholar
• Bader GD, Hogue CW. An automated method for finding molecular complexes in large protein interaction networks. BMC Bioinformatics 4,2 (2003).
   Google Scholar
• Spirin V, Mirny LA. Protein complexes and functional modules in molecular networks. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 100, 12123-12128 (2003).
   Google Scholar
• Wojcik J, Schachter V. protein—protein interaction map inference using interacting domain profile pairs. Bioinformatics 17\(Suppl. 1), 5296—S305 (2001).
   Google Scholar
• Wojcik J, Boneca IG, Legrain E Prediction, assessment and validation of protein interaction maps in bacteria. I MoL Biol. 323,763–770 (2002).
   Google Scholar
• Bock JR, Gough DA. Whole-proteome interaction mining. Bioinformatics 19, 125–134 (2003).
   Google Scholar
• Matthews LR, Vaglio P, Reboul J et aL Identification of potential interaction networks using sequence-based searches for conserved protein—protein interactions or 'interologs'. Genome Res. 11, 2120–2126 (2001).
   Google Scholar
• Kellis M, Patterson N, Endrizzi M, Birren B, Lander ES. Sequencing and comparison of yeast species to identify genes and regulatory elements. Nature 423, 241–254 (2003).
   Google Scholar
• Bader GD, Hogue CW. Analyzing yeast protein—protein interaction data obtained from different sources. Nature Biotechnol 20,991–997 (2002).
   Google Scholar
• Legrain P, Wojcik J, Gauthier JM. protein—protein interaction maps: a lead towards cellular functions. Trends Genet. 17, 346–352 (2001).
   Google Scholar
• Grigoriev A. On the number of protein—protein interactions in the yeast proteome. Nucleic Acids Res. 31, 4157–4161 (2003).
   Google Scholar
• Dezso Z, Oltvai ZN, Barabasi AL. Bioinformatics analysis of experimentally determined protein complexes in the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Genome Res. 13, 2450–2454 (2003).
   Google Scholar
• Deshaies RJ, Seol JH, McDonald WH et al. Charting the protein complexome in yeast by mass spectrometry. MoL Cell. Proteomics 1,3–10 (2002).
   Google Scholar
• Hartwell LH, Hopfield JJ, Leibler S, Murray AW. From molecular to modular cell biology. Nature 402,47–52 (1999).
   Google Scholar
• Ravasz E, Somera AL, Mongru DA, Oltvai ZN, Barabasi AL. Hierarchical organization of modularity in metabolic networks. Science 297,1551–1555 (2002).
   Google Scholar
• Ihmels J, Friedlander G, Bergmann S et aL Revealing modular organization in the yeast transcriptional network. Nature Genet. 31, 370–377 (2002).
   Google Scholar
• Strong M, Graeber TG, Beeby M etal. Visualization and interpretation of protein networks in Mycobacterium tuberculosis based on hierarchical clustering of genome-wide functional linkage maps. Nucleic Adds Res. 31,7099–7109 (2003).
   Google Scholar
• Mrowka R. A Java applet for visualizing protein—protein interaction. Bioinformatics 17, 669–671 (2001).
   Google Scholar
• Batagelj V, Mrvar A. Pajek - Program for large network analysis. Connections 21, 47–57 (1998).
   Google Scholar
• Koike T, Rzhetsky A. A graphic editor for analyzing signal-transduction pathways. Gene 259,235–244 (2000).
   Google Scholar
• Rain JC, Selig L, De Reuse H et aL The protein—protein interaction map of Helicobacter pylori Nature 409,211–215 (2001).
   Google Scholar
• Bader GD, Betel D, Hogue CW. BIND, the Biomolecular Interaction Network Database. Nucleic Acids Res. 31, 248–250 (2003).
   Google Scholar
• Zanzoni A, Montecchi-Palazzi L, Quondam M et al. MINT: a Molecular INTeraction database. FEBS Lett. 513, 135–140 (2002).
   Google Scholar
• Suzuki H, Saito R, Kanamori M et al. The mammalian protein—protein interaction database and its viewing system that is linked to the main FANTOM2 viewer. Genome Res. 13,1534–1541 (2003).
   Google Scholar
• Han K, Ju BH. A fast layout algorithm for protein interaction networks. Bioinformatics 19,1882–1888 (2003).
   Google Scholar
• Shannon P, Markiel A, Ozier O et aL Cytoscape: a software environment for integrated models of biomolecular interaction networks. Genome Res. 13, 2498–2504 (2003).
   Google Scholar
• Steffen M, Petti A, Aach J, D'haeseleer P, Church G. Automated modelling of signal transduction networks. BMC Bioinformatics 3,34–44 (2002).
   Google Scholar
• Yeger-Lotem E, Margalit H. Detection of regulatory circuits by integrating the cellular networks of protein—protein interactions and transcription regulation. Nucleic Acids Res. 31,6053–6061 (2003).
   Google Scholar
• Ideker T, Thorsson V, Ranish JA et al. Integrated genomic and proteomic analyses of a systematically perturbed metabolic network. Science 292,929–934 (2001).
   Google Scholar
• Bennett MJ, Choe S, Eisenberg D. Domain swapping: entangling alliances between proteins. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 91,3127-3131 (1994).
   Google Scholar
• D'Alessio G. Oligomer evolution in action? Nature Struct. Biol. 2,11–13 (1995).
   Google Scholar
• Barker A, Fickert R, Oehler S, Muller-Hill B. Operator search by mutant Lac repressors. MoL Biol. 278,549–558 (1998).
   Google Scholar
• Ciglic MI, Jackson PJ, Raillard SA et al. Origin of dimeric structure in the ribonuclease superfamily. Biochemistry 37, 4008–4022 (1998).
   Google Scholar
• Karlsson C, Jornvall H, Hoag JO. Sorbitol dehydrogenase: cDNA coding for the rat enzyme. Variations within the alcohol dehydrogenase family independent of quaternary structure and metal content. Eur. Biochem. 198,761–765 (1991).
   Google Scholar
• Marino-Ramirez L, Hu JC. Isolation and mapping of self-assembling protein domains encoded by the Saccharomyces cerevisiae genome using X repressor fusions. Yeast 19,641–650(2002).
   Google Scholar
• Studier FW, Dunn JJ. Organization and expression of bacteriophage Ti DNA. Cold Spring Harb. Symp. Quant. Biol. 47, 999-1007 (1983).
   Google Scholar
• Fassler J, Landsman D, Acharya A et al. B-ZIP proteins encoded by the Drosophila genome: evaluation of potential dimerization partners. Genome Res. 12, 1190–1200 (2002).
   Google Scholar