Systems biology approach to integrative comparative genomics

References

• Fleischmann RD, Adams MD, White O et al. Whole-genome random sequencing and assembly of Haemophilus influenzae Rd. Science269(5223), 496–512 (1995).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fraser CM, Gocayne JD, White O et al. The minimal gene complement of Mycoplasma genitalium. Science270(5235), 397–403 (1995).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liolios K, Tavernarakis N, Hugenholtz P, Kyrpides NC. The Genomes On Line Database (GOLD) v.2: a monitor of genome projects worldwide. Nucleic Acids Res.34(Database issue), D332–D334 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kitano H. Systems biology: a brief overview. Science295(5560), 1662–1664 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thornton JW, DeSalle R. Gene family evolution and homology: genomics meets phylogenetics. Annu. Rev. Genomics Hum. Genet.1, 41–73 (2000).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cooper GM, Brudno M, Stone EA, Dubchak I, Batzoglou S, Sidow A. Characterization of evolutionary rates and constraints in three mammalian genomes. Genome Res.14(4), 539–548 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kellis M, Patterson N, Endrizzi M, Birren B, Lander ES. Sequencing and comparison of yeast species to identify genes and regulatory elements. Nature423(6937), 241–254 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prohaska SJ, Fried C, Flamm C, Wagner GP, Stadler PF. Surveying phylogenetic footprints in large gene clusters: applications to Hox cluster duplications. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol.31(2), 581–604 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Altschul SF, Gish W, Miller W, Myers EW, Lipman DJ. Basic local alignment search tool. J. Mol. Biol.215(3), 403–410 (1990).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wall DP, Fraser HB, Hirsh AE. Detecting putative orthologs. Bioinformatics19(13), 1710–1711 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edgar RC, Batzoglou Y. Multiple sequence alignment. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol.16(3), 368–373 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Margulies EH, Chen CW, Green ED. Differences between pair-wise and multi-sequence alignment methods affect vertebrate genome comparisons. Trends Genet.22(4), 187–193 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hinrichs AS, Karolchik D, Baertsch R et al. The UCSC Genome Browser Database: update 2006. Nucleic Acids Res.34(Database issue), D590–D598 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xie X, Lu J, Kulbokas EJ et al. Systematic discovery of regulatory motifs in human promoters and 3´ UTRs by comparison of several mammals. Nature434(7031), 338–345 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ENCODE Project Consortium. The ENCODE (ENCyclopedia Of DNA Elements) Project. Science306(5696), 636–640 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Birney E, Clamp M, Durbin R. GeneWise and Genomewise. Genome Res.14(5), 988–995 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yeh RF, Lim LP, Burge CB. Computational inference of homologous gene structures in the human genome. Genome Res.11(5), 803–816 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meyer IM, Durbin R. Comparative ab initio prediction of gene structures using pair HMMs. Bioinformatics18(10), 1309–1318 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Korf I, Flicek P, Duan D, Brent MR. Integrating genomic homology into gene structure prediction. Bioinformatics17(Suppl. 1), S140–S148 (2001).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dewey C, Wu JQ, Cawley S, Alexandersson M, Gibbs R, Pachter L. Accurate identification of novel human genes through simultaneous gene prediction in human, mouse, and rat. Genome Res.14(4), 661–664 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koski LB, Golding GB. The closest BLAST hit is often not the nearest neighbor. J. Mol. Evol.52(6), 540–542 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dessimoz C, Boeckmann B, Roth AC, Gonnet GH. Detecting non-orthology in the COGs database and other approaches grouping orthologs using genome-specific best hits. Nucleic Acids Res.34(11), 3309–3316 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tatusov RL, Fedorova ND, Jackson JD et al. The COG database: an updated version includes eukaryotes. BMC Bioinformatics4, 41 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eyre TA, Wright MW, Lush MJ, Bruford EA. HCOP: a searchable database of human orthology predictions. Brief Bioinform.8(1), 2–5 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wheeler DL, Barrett T, Benson DA et al. Database resources of the National Center for Biotechnology Information. Nucleic Acids Res.34(Database issue), D173–D180 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deluca TF, Wu IH, Pu J et al. Roundup: a multi-genome repository of orthologs and evolutionary distances. Bioinformatics22(16), 2044–2046 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Apweiler R, Attwood TK, Bairoch A et al. InterPro – an integrated documentation resource for protein families, domains and functional sites. Bioinformatics16(12), 1145–1150 (2000).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sunyaev S, Ramensky V, Koch I, Lathe W III, Kondrashov AS, Bork P. Prediction of deleterious human alleles. Hum. Mol. Genet.10(6), 591–597 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guiliano DB, Hall N, Jones SJ et al. Conservation of long-range synteny and microsynteny between the genomes of two distantly related nematodes. Genome Biol.3(10), RESEARCH0057 (2002).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bowers JE, Chapman BA, Rong J, Paterson AH. Unravelling angiosperm genome evolution by phylogenetic analysis of chromosomal duplication events. Nature422(6930), 433–438 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuwahara T, Yamashita A, Hirakawa H et al. Genomic analysis of Bacteroides fragilis reveals extensive DNA inversions regulating cell surface adaptation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA101(41), 14919–14924 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wendel JF. Genome evolution in polyploids. Plant Mol. Biol.42(1), 225–249 (2000).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fried C, Prohaska SJ, Stadler PF. Independent Hox-cluster duplications in lampreys. J. Exp. Zoolog. B Mol. Dev. Evol.299(1), 18–25 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cheng Z, Ventura M, She X et al. A genome-wide comparison of recent chimpanzee and human segmental duplications. Nature437(7055), 88–93 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cannon SB, McCombie WR, Sato S et al. Evolution and microsynteny of the apyrase gene family in three legume genomes. Mol. Genet. Genomics270(4), 347–361 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wiehe T, Gebauer-Jung S, Mitchell-Olds T, Guigo R. SGP-1: prediction and validation of homologous genes based on sequence alignments. Genome Res.11(9), 1574–1583 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alexandersson M, Cawley S, Pachter L. SLAM: cross-species gene finding and alignment with a generalized pair hidden Markov model. Genome Res.13(3), 496–502 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pan X, Stein L, Brendel V. SynBrowse: a synteny browser for comparative sequence analysis. Bioinformatics21(17), 3461–3468 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shabalina SA, Ogurtsov AY, Kondrashov VA, Kondrashov AS. Selective constraint in intergenic regions of human and mouse genomes. Trends Genet.17(7), 373–376 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dermitzakis ET, Reymond A, Scamuffa N et al. Evolutionary discrimination of mammalian conserved non-genic sequences (CNGs). Science302(5647), 1033–1035 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hofacker IL, Fekete M, Flamm C et al. Automatic detection of conserved RNA structure elements in complete RNA virus genomes. Nucleic Acids Res.26(16), 3825–3836 (1998).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rivas E, Klein RJ, Jones TA, Eddy SR. Computational identification of noncoding RNAs in E. coli by comparative genomics. Curr. Biol.11(17), 1369–1373 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Washietl S, Hofacker IL, Stadler PF. Fast and reliable prediction of noncoding RNAs. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA102(7), 2454–2459 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moulton V. Tracking down noncoding RNAs. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA102(7), 2269–2270 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Washietl S, Hofacker IL, Lukasser M, Huttenhofer A, Stadler PF. Mapping of conserved RNA secondary structures predicts thousands of functional noncoding RNAs in the human genome. Nat. Biotechnol.23(11), 1383–1390 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang Z, Harrison PM, Liu Y, Gerstein M. Millions of years of evolution preserved: a comprehensive catalog of the processed pseudogenes in the human genome. Genome Res.13(12), 2541–2558 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harrison PM, Echols N, Gerstein MB. Digging for dead genes: an analysis of the characteristics of the pseudogene population in the Caenorhabditis elegans genome. Nucleic Acids Res.29(3), 818–830 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harrison PM, Milburn D, Zhang Z, Bertone P, Gerstein M. Identification of pseudogenes in the Drosophila melanogaster genome. Nucleic Acids Res.31(3), 1033–1037 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Homma K, Fukuchi S, Kawabata T, Ota M, Nishikawa K. A systematic investigation identifies a significant number of probable pseudogenes in the Escherichia coli genome. Gene294(1–2), 25–33 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• D’Errico I, Gadaleta G, Saccone C. Pseudogenes in metazoa: origin and features. Brief Funct. Genomic Proteomic3(2), 157–167 (2004).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Zhang Z, Carriero N, Gerstein M. Comparative analysis of processed pseudogenes in the mouse and human genomes. Trends Genet.20(2), 62–67 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cliften P, Sudarsanam P, Desikan A et al. Finding functional features in Saccharomyces genomes by phylogenetic footprinting. Science301(5629), 71–76 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hardison RC. Conserved noncoding sequences are reliable guides to regulatory elements. Trends Genet.16(9), 369–372 (2000).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nardone J, Lee DU, Ansel KM, Rao A. Bioinformatics for the ‘bench biologist’: how to find regulatory regions in genomic DNA. Nat. Immunol.5(8), 768–774 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pennacchio LA, Olivier M, Hubacek JA et al. An apolipoprotein influencing triglycerides in humans and mice revealed by comparative sequencing. Science294(5540), 169–173 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gottgens B, Gilbert JG, Barton LM et al. Long-range comparison of human and mouse SCL loci: localized regions of sensitivity to restriction endonucleases correspond precisely with peaks of conserved noncoding sequences. Genome Res.11(1), 87–97 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Loots GG, Locksley RM, Blankespoor CM et al. Identification of a coordinate regulator of interleukins 4, 13, and 5 by cross-species sequence comparisons. Science288(5463), 136–140 (2000).
   Google Scholar
• Gottgens B, Barton LM, Gilbert JG et al. Analysis of vertebrate SCL loci identifies conserved enhancers. Nat. Biotechnol.18(2), 181–186 (2000).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Touchman JW, Dehejia A, Chiba-Falek O et al. Human and mouse α-synuclein genes: comparative genomic sequence analysis and identification of a novel gene regulatory element. Genome Res.11(1), 78–86 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blanchette M, Bataille AR, Chen X et al. Genome-wide computational prediction of transcriptional regulatory modules reveals new insights into human gene expression. Genome Res.16(5), 656–668 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kolbe D, Taylor J, Elnitski L et al. Regulatory potential scores from genome-wide three-way alignments of human, mouse, and rat. Genome Res.14(4), 700–707 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• King DC, Taylor J, Elnitski L, Chiaromonte F, Miller W, Hardison RC. Evaluation of regulatory potential and conservation scores for detecting cis-regulatory modules in aligned mammalian genome sequences. Genome Res.15(8), 1051–1060 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Donaldson IJ, Chapman M, Gottgens B. TFBScluster: a resource for the characterization of transcriptional regulatory networks. Bioinformatics21(13), 3058–3059 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blanchette M, Tompa M. FootPrinter: a program designed for phylogenetic footprinting. Nucleic Acids Res.31(13), 3840–3842 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Loots GG, Ovcharenko I, Pachter L, Dubchak I, Rubin EM. rVista for comparative sequence-based discovery of functional transcription factor binding sites. Genome Res.12(5), 832–839 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Palaniswamy SK, Jin VX, Sun H, Davuluri RV. OMGProm: a database of orthologous mammalian gene promoters. Bioinformatics21(6), 835–836 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dieterich C, Wang H, Rateitschak K, Luz H, Vingron M. CORG: a database for COmparative Regulatory Genomics. Nucleic Acids Res.31(1), 55–57 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prabhakar S, Noonan JP, Paabo S, Rubin EM. Accelerated evolution of conserved noncoding sequences in humans. Science314(5800), 786 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Velculescu VE, Zhang L, Vogelstein B, Kinzler KW. Serial analysis of gene expression. Science270(5235), 484–487 (1995).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schena M, Shalon D, Davis RW, Brown PO. Quantitative monitoring of gene expression patterns with a complementary DNA microarray. Science270(5235), 467–470 (1995).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bertone P, Stolc V, Royce TE et al. Global identification of human transcribed sequences with genome tiling arrays. Science306(5705), 2242–2246 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kampa D, Cheng J, Kapranov P et al. Novel RNAs identified from an in-depth analysis of the transcriptome of human chromosomes 21 and 22. Genome Res.14(3), 331–342 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson JM, Edwards S, Shoemaker D, Schadt EE. Dark matter in the genome: evidence of widespread transcription detected by microarray tiling experiments. Trends Genet.21(2), 93–102 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cheng J, Kapranov P, Drenkow J et al. Transcriptional maps of 10 human chromosomes at 5-nucleotide resolution. Science308(5725), 1149–1154 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Okazaki Y, Furuno M, Kasukawa T et al. Analysis of the mouse transcriptome based on functional annotation of 60,770 full-length cDNAs. Nature420(6915), 563–573 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Imanishi T, Itoh T, Suzuki Y et al. Integrative annotation of 21,037 human genes validated by full-length cDNA clones. PLoS Biol.2(6), e162 (2004).
   Google Scholar
• Stolc V, Gauhar Z, Mason C et al. A gene expression map for the euchromatic genome of Drosophila melanogaster. Science306(5696), 655–660 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carninci P, Kasukawa T, Katayama S et al. The transcriptional landscape of the mammalian genome. Science309(5740), 1559–1563 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gilad Y, Rifkin SA, Bertone P, Gerstein M, White KP. Multi-species microarrays reveal the effect of sequence divergence on gene expression profiles. Genome Res.15(5), 674–680 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Canales RD, Luo Y, Willey JC et al. Evaluation of DNA microarray results with quantitative gene expression platforms. Nat. Biotechnol.24(9), 1115–1122 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ball CA, Brazma A. MGED standards: work in progress. Omics10(2), 138–144 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brazma A, Hingamp P, Quackenbush J et al. Minimum information about a microarray experiment (MIAME) – toward standards for microarray data. Nat. Genet.29(4), 365–371 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Qian J, Dolled-Filhart M, Lin J, Yu H, Gerstein M. Beyond synexpression relationships: local clustering of time-shifted and inverted gene expression profiles identifies new, biologically relevant interactions. J. Mol. Biol.314(5), 1053–1066 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gilad Y, Oshlack A, Smyth GK, Speed TP, White KP. Expression profiling in primates reveals a rapid evolution of human transcription factors. Nature440(7081), 242–245 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rifkin SA, Houle D, Kim J, White KP. A mutation accumulation assay reveals a broad capacity for rapid evolution of gene expression. Nature438(7065), 220–223 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Su AI, Cooke MP, Ching KA et al. Large-scale analysis of the human and mouse transcriptomes. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA99(7), 4465–4470 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kho AT, Kang PB, Kohane IS, Kunkel LM. Transcriptome-scale similarities between mouse and human skeletal muscles with normal and myopathic phenotypes. BMC Musculoskelet. Disord.7, 23 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Enard W, Khaitovich P, Klose J et al. Intra- and interspecific variation in primate gene expression patterns. Science296(5566), 340–343 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sugnet CW, Kent WJ, Ares M Jr, Haussler D. Transcriptome and genome conservation of alternative splicing events in humans and mice. Pac. Symp. Biocomput.66–77 (2004).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Greenbaum D, Jansen R, Gerstein M. Analysis of mRNA expression and protein abundance data: an approach for the comparison of the enrichment of features in the cellular population of proteins and transcripts. Bioinformatics18(4), 585–596 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ho Y, Gruhler A, Heilbut A et al. Systematic identification of protein complexes in Saccharomyces cerevisiae by mass spectrometry. Nature415(6868), 180–183 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gavin AC, Bosche M, Krause R et al. Functional organization of the yeast proteome by systematic analysis of protein complexes. Nature415(6868), 141–147 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhu H, Bilgin M, Bangham R et al. Global analysis of protein activities using proteome chips. Science293(5537), 2101–2105 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hegyi H, Lin J, Greenbaum D, Gerstein M. Structural genomics analysis: characteristics of atypical, common, and horizontally transferred folds. Proteins47(2), 126–141 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chervitz SA, Aravind L, Sherlock G et al. Comparison of the complete protein sets of worm and yeast: orthology and divergence. Science282(5396), 2022–2028 (1998).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aravind L, Subramanian G. Origin of multicellular eukaryotes – insights from proteome comparisons. Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev.9(6), 688–694 (1999).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Washburn MP, Yates JR III. Analysis of the microbial proteome. Curr. Opin. Microbiol.3(3), 292–297 (2000).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gerstein M, Hegyi H. Comparing genomes in terms of protein structure: surveys of a finite parts list. FEMS Microbiol. Rev.22(4), 277–304 (1998).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baumeister W. From proteomic inventory to architecture. FEBS Lett.579(4), 933–937 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burley SK. An overview of structural genomics. Nat. Struct. Biol.7(Suppl.), 932–934 (2000).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Brenner SE. A tour of structural genomics. Nat. Rev. Genet.2(10), 801–809 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hegyi H, Gerstein M. The relationship between protein structure and function: a comprehensive survey with application to the yeast genome. J. Mol. Biol.288(1), 147–164 (1999).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gerstein M, Lin J, Hegyi H. Protein folds in the worm genome. Pac. Symp. Biocomput.,2000, 30–41(2000).
   Google Scholar
• Gerstein M, Levitt M. A structural census of the current population of protein sequences. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA94(22), 11911–11916 (1997).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aravind L, Iyer LM, Koonin EV. Comparative genomics and structural biology of the molecular innovations of eukaryotes. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol.16(3), 409–419 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wolf YI, Brenner SE, Bash PA, Koonin EV. Distribution of protein folds in the three superkingdoms of life. Genome Res.9(1), 17–26 (1999).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Qian J, Stenger B, Wilson CA et al. PartsList: a web-based system for dynamically ranking protein folds based on disparate attributes, including whole-genome expression and interaction information. Nucleic Acids Res.29(8), 1750–1764 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chandonia JM, Brenner SE. The impact of structural genomics: expectations and outcomes. Science311(5759), 347–351 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eisen JA. Assessing evolutionary relationships among microbes from whole-genome analysis. Curr. Opin. Microbiol.3(5), 475–480 (2000).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lin J, Gerstein M. Whole-genome trees based on the occurrence of folds and orthologs: implications for comparing genomes on different levels. Genome Res.10(6), 808–818 (2000).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harris MA, Clark J, Ireland A et al. The Gene Ontology (GO) database and informatics resource. Nucleic Acids Res.32(Database issue), D258–D261 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kanehisa M, Goto S, Kawashima S, Okuno Y, Hattori M. The KEGG resource for deciphering the genome. Nucleic Acids Res.32(Database issue), D277–D280 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Joshi-Tope G, Gillespie M, Vastrik I et al. Reactome: a knowledgebase of biological pathways. Nucleic Acids Res.33(Database issue), D428–D432 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Winzeler EA, Shoemaker DD, Astromoff A et al. Functional characterization of the S. cerevisiae genome by gene deletion and parallel analysis. Science285(5429), 901–906 (1999).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Giaever G, Chu AM, Ni L et al. Functional profiling of the Saccharomyces cerevisiae genome. Nature418(6896), 387–391 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fire A, Xu S, Montgomery MK, Kostas SA, Driver SE, Mello CC. Potent and specific genetic interference by double-stranded RNA in Caenorhabditis elegans. Nature391(6669), 806–811 (1998).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Orchard S, Hermjakob H, Apweiler R. Annotating the human proteome. Mol. Cell. Proteomics4(4), 435–440 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huh WK, Falvo JV, Gerke LC et al. Global analysis of protein localization in budding yeast. Nature425(6959), 686–691 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nuhse TS, Stensballe A, Jensen ON, Peck SC. Phosphoproteomics of the Arabidopsis plasma membrane and a new phosphorylation site database. Plant Cell16(9), 2394–2405 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Froehlich JE, Wilkerson CG, Ray WK et al. Proteomic study of the Arabidopsis thaliana chloroplastic envelope membrane utilizing alternatives to traditional two-dimensional electrophoresis. J. Proteome Res.2(4), 413–425 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim H, Melen K, Osterberg M, von Heijne G. A global topology map of the Saccharomyces cerevisiae membrane proteome. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA103(30), 11142–11147 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gaucher SP, Taylor SW, Fahy E et al. Expanded coverage of the human heart mitochondrial proteome using multidimensional liquid chromatography coupled with tandem mass spectrometry. J. Proteome Res.3(3), 495–505 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gietz RD. Yeast two-hybrid system screening. Methods Mol. Biol.313, 345–371 (2006).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Uetz P, Giot L, Cagney G et al. A comprehensive analysis of protein–protein interactions in Saccharomyces cerevisiae.Nature403(6770), 623–627 (2000).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Giot L, Bader JS, Brouwer C et al. A protein interaction map of Drosophila melanogaster. Science302(5651), 1727–1736 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Formstecher E, Aresta S, Collura V et al. Protein interaction mapping: a Drosophila case study. Genome Res.15(3), 376–384 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stanyon CA, Liu G, Mangiola BA et al. A Drosophila protein-interaction map centered on cell-cycle regulators. Genome Biol.5(12), R96 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li S, Armstrong CM, Bertin N et al. A map of the interactome network of the metazoan C. elegans. Science303(5657), 540–543 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tong AH, Lesage G, Bader GD et al. Global mapping of the yeast genetic interaction network. Science303(5659), 808–813 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lehner B, Fraser AG. A first-draft human protein-interaction map. Genome Biol.5(9), R63 (2004).
   Google Scholar
• Gandhi TK, Zhong J, Mathivanan S et al. Analysis of the human protein interactome and comparison with yeast, worm and fly interaction datasets. Nat. Genet.38(3), 285–293 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bader GD, Hogue CW. BIND – a data specification for storing and describing biomolecular interactions, molecular complexes and pathways. Bioinformatics16(5), 465–477 (2000).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salwinski L, Miller CS, Smith AJ, Pettit FK, Bowie JU, Eisenberg D. The Database of Interacting Proteins: 2004 update. Nucleic Acids Res.32(Database issue), D449–D451 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®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(6B), 1534–1541 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stark C, Breitkreutz BJ, Reguly T, Boucher L, Breitkreutz A, Tyers M. BioGRID: a general repository for interaction datasets. Nucleic Acids Res.34(Database issue), D535–D539 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zanzoni A, Montecchi-Palazzi L, Quondam M, Ausiello G, Helmer-Citterich M, Cesareni G. MINT: a Molecular INTeraction database. FEBS Lett.513(1), 135–140 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mishra GR, Suresh M, Kumaran K et al. Human protein reference database – 2006 update. Nucleic Acids Res.34(Database issue), D411–D414 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kerrien S, Alam-Faruque Y, Aranda B et al. IntAct – open source resource for molecular interaction data. Nucleic Acids Res.35(Database issue), D561–D565 (2006).
   Google Scholar
• Jansen R, Yu H, Greenbaum D et al. A Bayesian networks approach for predicting protein–protein interactions from genomic data. Science302(5644), 449–453 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®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(12), 2120–2126 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yu H, Luscombe NM, Lu HX et al. Annotation transfer between genomes: protein–protein interologs and protein–DNA regulogs. Genome Res.14(6), 1107–1118 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• von Mering C, Jensen LJ, Snel B et al. STRING: known and predicted protein–protein associations, integrated and transferred across organisms. Nucleic Acids Res.33(Database issue), D433–D437 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huang TW, Tien AC, Huang WS et al. POINT: a database for the prediction of protein–protein interactions based on the orthologous interactome. Bioinformatics20(17), 3273–3276 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown KR, Jurisica I. Online predicted human interaction database. Bioinformatics21(9), 2076–2082 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kholodenko BN. Cell-signalling dynamics in time and space. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol.7(3), 165–176 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Lichtenberg U, Jensen LJ, Brunak S, Bork P. Dynamic complex formation during the yeast cell cycle. Science307(5710), 724–727 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tu BP, Kudlicki A, Rowicka M, McKnight SL. Logic of the yeast metabolic cycle: temporal compartmentalization of cellular processes. Science310(5751), 1152–1158 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arbeitman MN, Furlong EE, Imam F et al. Gene expression during the life cycle of Drosophila melanogaster. Science297(5590), 2270–2275 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lamb J, Crawford ED, Peck D et al. The Connectivity Map: using gene-expression signatures to connect small molecules, genes, and disease. Science313(5795), 1929–1935 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walhout AJ, Sordella R, Lu X et al. Protein interaction mapping in C. elegans using proteins involved in vulval development. Science287(5450), 116–122 (2000).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edwards JS, Palsson BO. Robustness analysis of the Escherichia coli metabolic network. Biotechnol. Prog.16(6), 927–939 (2000).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar