Protein interaction networks--more than mere modules
It is widely believed that the modular organization of cellular function is reflected in a modular structure of molecular networks. A common view is that a "module" in a network is a cohesively linked group of nodes, densely connected internally and sparsely interacting with the rest of th...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | PLoS computational biology 2010-01, Vol.6 (1), p.e1000659-e1000659 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | e1000659 |
---|---|
container_issue | 1 |
container_start_page | e1000659 |
container_title | PLoS computational biology |
container_volume | 6 |
creator | Pinkert, Stefan Schultz, Jörg Reichardt, Jörg |
description | It is widely believed that the modular organization of cellular function is reflected in a modular structure of molecular networks. A common view is that a "module" in a network is a cohesively linked group of nodes, densely connected internally and sparsely interacting with the rest of the network. Many algorithms try to identify functional modules in protein-interaction networks (PIN) by searching for such cohesive groups of proteins. Here, we present an alternative approach independent of any prior definition of what actually constitutes a "module". In a self-consistent manner, proteins are grouped into "functional roles" if they interact in similar ways with other proteins according to their functional roles. Such grouping may well result in cohesive modules again, but only if the network structure actually supports this. We applied our method to the PIN from the Human Protein Reference Database (HPRD) and found that a representation of the network in terms of cohesive modules, at least on a global scale, does not optimally represent the network's structure because it focuses on finding independent groups of proteins. In contrast, a decomposition into functional roles is able to depict the structure much better as it also takes into account the interdependencies between roles and even allows groupings based on the absence of interactions between proteins in the same functional role. This, for example, is the case for transmembrane proteins, which could never be recognized as a cohesive group of nodes in a PIN. When mapping experimental methods onto the groups, we identified profound differences in the coverage suggesting that our method is able to capture experimental bias in the data, too. For example yeast-two-hybrid data were highly overrepresented in one particular group. Thus, there is more structure in protein-interaction networks than cohesive modules alone and we believe this finding can significantly improve automated function prediction algorithms. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000659 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_plos_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_plos_journals_1313156528</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A218815632</galeid><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_8cdc4573488d4b33a235776ae0d1f895</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>A218815632</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c604t-813142bde84756bbd3997837989740c004f10522dfaa7c071ea3d2fa471c08e83</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqVUstu3CAUtapGTZr2D6p2dlUXnvA0eFMpivoYKUqqPtYIw_WEqQ0TwH38fZmME2WWFQuuLuccOJdTVa8wWmIq8NkmTNHrYbk1nVtihFDD2yfVCeac1oJy-fRRfVw9T2mDUCnb5ll1TBAmDaf0pGJfYsjg_ML5DFGb7IJfeMi_Q_yZ6noMERb5RvvFCKUag50GSC-qo14PCV7O-2n14-OH7xef68vrT6uL88vaNIjlWmKKGeksSCZ403WWtq2QVLSyFQwZhFiPESfE9loLgwQGTS3pNRPYIAmSnlZv9rrbISQ1G06qyFLMG052iNUeYYPeqG10o45_VdBO3TVCXCsdszMDKGmsYVxQJqVlHaWaUC5EowFZ3MuWF633821TN4I14HPUw4Ho4Yl3N2odfilSjJKGFoG3s0AMtxOkrEaXDAyD9hCmpAQt_4YFJQW53CPXurzM-T4UQVOWhdGZ4KF3pX9OsJTF6B3h3QGhYDL8yWs9paRW377-B_bqEMv2WBNDShH6B7sYqV3M7qeudjFTc8wK7fXjUT2Q7nNF_wG5bM1I</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>733711732</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Protein interaction networks--more than mere modules</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>Public Library of Science (PLoS) Journals Open Access</source><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Pinkert, Stefan ; Schultz, Jörg ; Reichardt, Jörg</creator><contributor>Domany, Eytan</contributor><creatorcontrib>Pinkert, Stefan ; Schultz, Jörg ; Reichardt, Jörg ; Domany, Eytan</creatorcontrib><description>It is widely believed that the modular organization of cellular function is reflected in a modular structure of molecular networks. A common view is that a "module" in a network is a cohesively linked group of nodes, densely connected internally and sparsely interacting with the rest of the network. Many algorithms try to identify functional modules in protein-interaction networks (PIN) by searching for such cohesive groups of proteins. Here, we present an alternative approach independent of any prior definition of what actually constitutes a "module". In a self-consistent manner, proteins are grouped into "functional roles" if they interact in similar ways with other proteins according to their functional roles. Such grouping may well result in cohesive modules again, but only if the network structure actually supports this. We applied our method to the PIN from the Human Protein Reference Database (HPRD) and found that a representation of the network in terms of cohesive modules, at least on a global scale, does not optimally represent the network's structure because it focuses on finding independent groups of proteins. In contrast, a decomposition into functional roles is able to depict the structure much better as it also takes into account the interdependencies between roles and even allows groupings based on the absence of interactions between proteins in the same functional role. This, for example, is the case for transmembrane proteins, which could never be recognized as a cohesive group of nodes in a PIN. When mapping experimental methods onto the groups, we identified profound differences in the coverage suggesting that our method is able to capture experimental bias in the data, too. For example yeast-two-hybrid data were highly overrepresented in one particular group. Thus, there is more structure in protein-interaction networks than cohesive modules alone and we believe this finding can significantly improve automated function prediction algorithms.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1553-7358</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 1553-734X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1553-7358</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000659</identifier><identifier>PMID: 20126533</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Public Library of Science</publisher><subject>Algorithms ; Automation ; Computational Biology - methods ; Computational Biology/Systems Biology ; Databases, Protein ; Humans ; Interactomes ; Methods ; Models, Molecular ; Protein Interaction Domains and Motifs - physiology ; Protein Interaction Mapping - methods ; Proteins ; Proteins - physiology ; Studies ; Two-Hybrid System Techniques</subject><ispartof>PLoS computational biology, 2010-01, Vol.6 (1), p.e1000659-e1000659</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2010 Public Library of Science</rights><rights>Pinkert et al. 2010</rights><rights>2010 Pinkert et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited: Pinkert S, Schultz J, Reichardt J (2010) Protein Interaction Networks--More Than Mere Modules. PLoS Comput Biol 6(1): e1000659. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000659</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c604t-813142bde84756bbd3997837989740c004f10522dfaa7c071ea3d2fa471c08e83</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c604t-813142bde84756bbd3997837989740c004f10522dfaa7c071ea3d2fa471c08e83</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2813263/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2813263/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,315,728,781,785,865,886,2103,2929,23871,27929,27930,53796,53798</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20126533$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><contributor>Domany, Eytan</contributor><creatorcontrib>Pinkert, Stefan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schultz, Jörg</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Reichardt, Jörg</creatorcontrib><title>Protein interaction networks--more than mere modules</title><title>PLoS computational biology</title><addtitle>PLoS Comput Biol</addtitle><description>It is widely believed that the modular organization of cellular function is reflected in a modular structure of molecular networks. A common view is that a "module" in a network is a cohesively linked group of nodes, densely connected internally and sparsely interacting with the rest of the network. Many algorithms try to identify functional modules in protein-interaction networks (PIN) by searching for such cohesive groups of proteins. Here, we present an alternative approach independent of any prior definition of what actually constitutes a "module". In a self-consistent manner, proteins are grouped into "functional roles" if they interact in similar ways with other proteins according to their functional roles. Such grouping may well result in cohesive modules again, but only if the network structure actually supports this. We applied our method to the PIN from the Human Protein Reference Database (HPRD) and found that a representation of the network in terms of cohesive modules, at least on a global scale, does not optimally represent the network's structure because it focuses on finding independent groups of proteins. In contrast, a decomposition into functional roles is able to depict the structure much better as it also takes into account the interdependencies between roles and even allows groupings based on the absence of interactions between proteins in the same functional role. This, for example, is the case for transmembrane proteins, which could never be recognized as a cohesive group of nodes in a PIN. When mapping experimental methods onto the groups, we identified profound differences in the coverage suggesting that our method is able to capture experimental bias in the data, too. For example yeast-two-hybrid data were highly overrepresented in one particular group. Thus, there is more structure in protein-interaction networks than cohesive modules alone and we believe this finding can significantly improve automated function prediction algorithms.</description><subject>Algorithms</subject><subject>Automation</subject><subject>Computational Biology - methods</subject><subject>Computational Biology/Systems Biology</subject><subject>Databases, Protein</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Interactomes</subject><subject>Methods</subject><subject>Models, Molecular</subject><subject>Protein Interaction Domains and Motifs - physiology</subject><subject>Protein Interaction Mapping - methods</subject><subject>Proteins</subject><subject>Proteins - physiology</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Two-Hybrid System Techniques</subject><issn>1553-7358</issn><issn>1553-734X</issn><issn>1553-7358</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2010</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNqVUstu3CAUtapGTZr2D6p2dlUXnvA0eFMpivoYKUqqPtYIw_WEqQ0TwH38fZmME2WWFQuuLuccOJdTVa8wWmIq8NkmTNHrYbk1nVtihFDD2yfVCeac1oJy-fRRfVw9T2mDUCnb5ll1TBAmDaf0pGJfYsjg_ML5DFGb7IJfeMi_Q_yZ6noMERb5RvvFCKUag50GSC-qo14PCV7O-2n14-OH7xef68vrT6uL88vaNIjlWmKKGeksSCZ403WWtq2QVLSyFQwZhFiPESfE9loLgwQGTS3pNRPYIAmSnlZv9rrbISQ1G06qyFLMG052iNUeYYPeqG10o45_VdBO3TVCXCsdszMDKGmsYVxQJqVlHaWaUC5EowFZ3MuWF633821TN4I14HPUw4Ho4Yl3N2odfilSjJKGFoG3s0AMtxOkrEaXDAyD9hCmpAQt_4YFJQW53CPXurzM-T4UQVOWhdGZ4KF3pX9OsJTF6B3h3QGhYDL8yWs9paRW377-B_bqEMv2WBNDShH6B7sYqV3M7qeudjFTc8wK7fXjUT2Q7nNF_wG5bM1I</recordid><startdate>20100101</startdate><enddate>20100101</enddate><creator>Pinkert, Stefan</creator><creator>Schultz, Jörg</creator><creator>Reichardt, Jörg</creator><general>Public Library of Science</general><general>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>ISN</scope><scope>ISR</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20100101</creationdate><title>Protein interaction networks--more than mere modules</title><author>Pinkert, Stefan ; Schultz, Jörg ; Reichardt, Jörg</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c604t-813142bde84756bbd3997837989740c004f10522dfaa7c071ea3d2fa471c08e83</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2010</creationdate><topic>Algorithms</topic><topic>Automation</topic><topic>Computational Biology - methods</topic><topic>Computational Biology/Systems Biology</topic><topic>Databases, Protein</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Interactomes</topic><topic>Methods</topic><topic>Models, Molecular</topic><topic>Protein Interaction Domains and Motifs - physiology</topic><topic>Protein Interaction Mapping - methods</topic><topic>Proteins</topic><topic>Proteins - physiology</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Two-Hybrid System Techniques</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Pinkert, Stefan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schultz, Jörg</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Reichardt, Jörg</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Canada</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Science</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>PLoS computational biology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Pinkert, Stefan</au><au>Schultz, Jörg</au><au>Reichardt, Jörg</au><au>Domany, Eytan</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Protein interaction networks--more than mere modules</atitle><jtitle>PLoS computational biology</jtitle><addtitle>PLoS Comput Biol</addtitle><date>2010-01-01</date><risdate>2010</risdate><volume>6</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>e1000659</spage><epage>e1000659</epage><pages>e1000659-e1000659</pages><issn>1553-7358</issn><issn>1553-734X</issn><eissn>1553-7358</eissn><abstract>It is widely believed that the modular organization of cellular function is reflected in a modular structure of molecular networks. A common view is that a "module" in a network is a cohesively linked group of nodes, densely connected internally and sparsely interacting with the rest of the network. Many algorithms try to identify functional modules in protein-interaction networks (PIN) by searching for such cohesive groups of proteins. Here, we present an alternative approach independent of any prior definition of what actually constitutes a "module". In a self-consistent manner, proteins are grouped into "functional roles" if they interact in similar ways with other proteins according to their functional roles. Such grouping may well result in cohesive modules again, but only if the network structure actually supports this. We applied our method to the PIN from the Human Protein Reference Database (HPRD) and found that a representation of the network in terms of cohesive modules, at least on a global scale, does not optimally represent the network's structure because it focuses on finding independent groups of proteins. In contrast, a decomposition into functional roles is able to depict the structure much better as it also takes into account the interdependencies between roles and even allows groupings based on the absence of interactions between proteins in the same functional role. This, for example, is the case for transmembrane proteins, which could never be recognized as a cohesive group of nodes in a PIN. When mapping experimental methods onto the groups, we identified profound differences in the coverage suggesting that our method is able to capture experimental bias in the data, too. For example yeast-two-hybrid data were highly overrepresented in one particular group. Thus, there is more structure in protein-interaction networks than cohesive modules alone and we believe this finding can significantly improve automated function prediction algorithms.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Public Library of Science</pub><pmid>20126533</pmid><doi>10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000659</doi><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1553-7358 |
ispartof | PLoS computational biology, 2010-01, Vol.6 (1), p.e1000659-e1000659 |
issn | 1553-7358 1553-734X 1553-7358 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_plos_journals_1313156528 |
source | MEDLINE; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; Public Library of Science (PLoS) Journals Open Access; PubMed Central |
subjects | Algorithms Automation Computational Biology - methods Computational Biology/Systems Biology Databases, Protein Humans Interactomes Methods Models, Molecular Protein Interaction Domains and Motifs - physiology Protein Interaction Mapping - methods Proteins Proteins - physiology Studies Two-Hybrid System Techniques |
title | Protein interaction networks--more than mere modules |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-13T02%3A38%3A57IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_plos_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Protein%20interaction%20networks--more%20than%20mere%20modules&rft.jtitle=PLoS%20computational%20biology&rft.au=Pinkert,%20Stefan&rft.date=2010-01-01&rft.volume=6&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=e1000659&rft.epage=e1000659&rft.pages=e1000659-e1000659&rft.issn=1553-7358&rft.eissn=1553-7358&rft_id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000659&rft_dat=%3Cgale_plos_%3EA218815632%3C/gale_plos_%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=733711732&rft_id=info:pmid/20126533&rft_galeid=A218815632&rft_doaj_id=oai_doaj_org_article_8cdc4573488d4b33a235776ae0d1f895&rfr_iscdi=true |