having genome data allows collection of other ‘ omic ’ datasets
DESCRIPTION
Having genome data allows collection of other ‘ omic ’ datasets. Systems biology takes a different perspective on the entire dataset, often from a Network Perspective. Networks consist of nodes (entities) and interactions between nodes. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
1
Having genome data allows collection of other ‘omic’ datasets
Systems biology takes a different perspective on the entire dataset,
often from a Network Perspective
Networks consist of nodes (entities)and interactions between nodes
2
Having genome data allows collection of other ‘omic’ datasets
Systems biology takes a different perspective on the entire dataset,
often from a Network Perspective
Ongoing questions in Systems Biology:
Types of network structures and their properties
Effects of positive/negative feedback, feed-forward
Dynamics of signal processing through network
Insulation of signal through the network
Ultimately, using information to predictoutput of the network given some input
3
Certain network features are of interest
Connectivity (degree): Number of connections
Centrality (betweenness): How central a node is
Assortativity: Density of a node neighborhood
Distance: shortest path between 2 nodes
Average Distance: average between all node pairs
Node: entity (protein, gene, metabolite)
Edge: connection (physical, genetic) between entities
DAG: Directed Acyclic Graph
4
Data can be collected in several ways:
Large-scale yeast two-hybrid assays (in vivo in yeast)
Fuse bait to DNA binding domain of TF
Co-express in yeast: library of proteins fused to activation domain of TF
Reporter (often drug resistance gene) only expressed if BD and AD are brought
together through ppi
Protein-protein interaction (ppi) networksGoal is to capture every ppi in the cell
5
Protein-protein interaction (ppi) networks
Data can be collected in several ways:
Goal is to capture every ppi in the cell
Bait immunoprecipitation + tandem mass spectrometry (MS/MS)high throughput bait pull downs and tons of MS/MS
6
Protein-protein interaction (ppi) networks
Data can be collected in several ways:
From Ho et al. Nature 2002arrow indicates bait to targetblue = previously known, red = novel this study
Goal is to capture every ppi in the cell
Bait immunoprecipitation + tandem mass spectrometry (MS/MS)high throughput bait pull downs and tons of MS/MS
7
Currently, there are several major issues with ppi
* Only partial data: False Negatives (missed interactions)some interactions hard to measure
* Often noisy: False positives (incorrect interactions)different types of noise inherent to different approaches
* Affected (sometimes) by high false-positive interactions
* So far mostly collected under standard growth conditionslikely to be many condition-specific interactions & ‘rewiring’
Still relatively low overlap between different ppi datasets
Most reliable data: that observed in >1 study
Protein-protein interaction (ppi) networksGoal is to capture every ppi in the cell
8
Evolution of networks through:
* Adding new nodes to an network
* Addition/loss of connections
* Higher-order rewiring
How do networks evolve?
9
Conservation of ppi’s across species
‘interlogs’ (M. Vidal): conserved protein-protein interaction pair
Matthews et al. Gen Res 2001. Tested Y2H interactions in worm ‘interlogs’
- only 25% of previously shown Y2H ppi could be verified in yeast!- 6/19 (31%) were conserved ppi- another assessment found 19% of ppi were conserved
so, 19 - 31% of ppi were conserved between yeast and C. elegans
Other methods emerging to compare networks in a more complex way …but it’s challenging due to partial/noisy networks.
10
Do ppi’s constrain protein evolution?
Fraser et al. Science 2001: significant correlation between rate of protein evolution and connectivity (# ppi)reported slower evolution rates for proteins with lots of contacts
But other studies reported no significant correlation …
Bloom & Adami. BMC Evo Biol. 2003: Reason for Fraser correlation wasan artifact of some of the datasets
- compiled 7 different yeast largescale datasets
- argue that affinity purification = more artifactual ppi’s measured, specificallyfor abundant proteins
- after controlling for this, the remaining partial correlation explained by protein abundance.
11
Genetic interaction networksSynthetic genetic (epistatic) interactions for double-gene knock outs:
Gene 1 knock-out: no phenotypeGene 2 knock-out: no phenotypeGene 1 & 2 knocked out: sickly
Negative interaction: double knockout phenotype worse than singles
Gene 1 knock-out: sicklyGene 2 knock-out: no phenotype or sicklyGene 1 & 2 knocked out: less sickly
Positive interaction: double knockout phenotype improves over singles
Generally more (>2X in yeast) negative than positive interactions detected in a single species
12
Nat Gen 2008
Identified synthetic lethal (extreme negative) genetic interactions in S. cerevisiae
Only 6 (0.7%) of pairs were synthetic lethal in C. elegans Adjust to ~5% given error ratenot explained by paralogy, as these are all 1:1 orthologs
Compared to >60% essentiality conserved across species (individual essential genes)
>30% protein-protein interactions conserved across species
Then used RNAi to knock down 837 pairs of orthologs in C. elegans
13
Nevan Krogan E-maps (epistatic interactions between pairs of gene xo’s)
Science 2008
550 genes, 118,000 different gene-gene knockouts, focusing on chromatin/nuclear
* Matches a similar network designed in S. cerevisiae
15 - 30% of negative interactions were conserved between species (>500 my)more than C. elegans-yeast comparison by Tischler et al.
>50% of positive interactions were conserved
Much higher conservation of genetic interactions if only look at interacting proteins
15
Roguev et al. 2008
Several networks appear to have evolved significantly
MSC1
Sz. pombe -specificparalog of SWR-CRPD3L MED.
WHY?1. Could be subfunctionalization in Sz. pombe by SWR-C paralog MSC12. Could be compensation in S. cerevevisiae for loss of RNAi3. Could be missed interactions (different environment, etc)
16
Many remaining questions …
* What types of protein-protein interactions are most conserved and why?
* What types of networks are more constrained and why?specific functions, structures, features more constrained?
* What processes allow/promote network ‘rewiring’?
* What effect do network interactions have on protein evolution rates?
* How to ppi networks vary across environmental space and time?
Can also look at evolution of protein modification:phophorylation, acetylation, ubiquitination, glycosylation, etc
ATP
Kinase
Protein target
P
IMAC: metal affinity purification:recovers phospho-peptides
Can also look at evolution of protein modification:phophorylation, acetylation, ubiquitination, glycosylation, etc
Protein target
Acetyl
Immunoprecipitation to recoverymodified proteins