Categorizing Biases in High-Confidence High-Throughput Protein-Protein Interaction Data Sets

Abstract

We characterized and evaluated the functional attributes of three yeast high-confidence protein-protein interaction data sets derived from affinity purification/mass spectrometry, protein-fragment complementation assay, and yeast two-hybrid experiments. The interacting proteins retrieved from these data sets formed distinct, partially overlapping sets with different protein-protein interaction characteristics. These differences were primarily a function of the deployed experimental technologies used to recover these interactions. This affected the total coverage of interactions and was especially evident in the recovery of interactions among different functional classes of proteins. We found that the interaction data obtained by the yeast two-hybrid method was the least biased toward any particular functional characterization. In contrast, interacting proteins in the affinity purification/mass spectrometry and protein-fragment complementation assay data sets were over-and under-represented among distinct and different functional categories. We delineated how these differences affected protein complex organization in the network of interactions, in particular for strongly interacting complexes (e.g. RNA and protein synthesis) versus weak and transient interacting complexes (e.g. protein transport). We quantified methodological differences in detecting protein interactions from larger protein complexes, in the correlation of protein abundance among interacting proteins, and in their connectivity of essential proteins. In the latter case, we showed that minimizing inherent methodology biases removed many of the ambiguous conclusions about protein essentiality and protein connectivity. We used these findings to rationalize how biological insights obtained by analyzing data sets originating from different sources sometimes do not agree or may even contradict each other. An important corollary of this work was that discrepancies in biological insights did not necessarily imply that one detection methodology was better or worse, but rather that, to a large extent, the insights reflected the methodological biases themselves. Consequently, interpreting the protein interaction data within their experimental or cellular context provided the best avenue for overcoming biases and inferring biological knowledge. Molecular & Cellular Proteomics 10: 10.1074/mcp.M111.012500, 1-17, 2011.The collection of proteins and protein assemblies in a cell constitutes a vital and integral part of the machinery required to sustain all cellular functions and processes (1). Given that most proteins are part of one or more protein complexes, protein-protein interactions are essential in understanding the nature of protein-mediated biological processes. Therefore, because of the large number of potential protein interactions, high-throughput technologies are essential for generating whole-cell maps of these interactions (2, 3). Several largescale protein interaction data sets of the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae have been determined using diffe...

Protein stickiness, rather than number of functional protein-protein interactions, predicts expression noise and plasticity in yeast

“…Note that this requirement for the availability of noise data biases analyses towards the properties of higher-abundance proteins. Fortuitously, this makes ACMS a more reliable metric of “true” PPIs [5,24], strengthening our interpretation of the results.…”

Neuroprotective mechanisms activated in non-seizing rats exposed to sarin

“…In our analyses, we separately identified significantly activated (up-regulated) and suppressed (down-regulated) genes using an FDR-corrected p-value of 0.05 as the statistical significance cutoff. We considered upand down-regulated genes separately, as biological processes are characterized by interacting, co-regulated proteins (Yu et al, 2011). We carried out the rank product analyses separately for each combination of brain region and time point in either seizing or non-seizing rats.…”

Systems Biology Approaches for Discovering Biomarkers for Traumatic Brain Injury

“…87 Both methods can produce high-quality interactions, but each provides fundamentally different information with unique limitations. 88,89 Protein complexes measured by AP/MS have ambiguous network interpretations because they can be represented either by the spoke model, in which interactions are inferred only between the bait and each prey protein in the purified complex, or by the fully connected model, in which each protein in the complex is assumed to interact with all other proteins. In contrast, interactions measured by Y2H are more naturally interpreted as binary, pairwise interactions.…”

“…[100][101][102][103][104][105] Such analysis recovers coregulated, highly connected subnetworks (or functional protein interaction modules) that have been found to characterize biological processes 89 or to work together to produce a cellular phenotype. 80 Several algorithms exist for decomposing PPI networks into functional modules.…”