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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:PLoS computational biology 2010-01, Vol.6 (1), p.e1000659-e1000659
Hauptverfasser: Pinkert, Stefan, Schultz, Jörg, Reichardt, Jörg
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