Flexible nets. The roles of intrinsic disorder in protein interaction networks

Proteins participate in complex sets of interactions that represent the mechanistic foundation for much of the physiology and function of the cell. These protein-protein interactions are organized into exquisitely complex networks. The architecture of protein-protein interaction networks was recently proposed to be scale-free, with most of the proteins having only one or two connections but with relatively fewer 'hubs' possessing tens, hundreds or more links. The high level of hub connectivity must somehow be reflected in protein structure. What structural quality of hub proteins enables them to interact with large numbers of diverse targets? One possibility would be to employ binding regions that have the ability to bind multiple, structurally diverse partners. This trait can be imparted by the incorporation of intrinsic disorder in one or both partners. To illustrate the value of such contributions, this review examines the roles of intrinsic disorder in protein network architecture. We show that there are three general ways that intrinsic disorder can contribute: First, intrinsic disorder can serve as the structural basis for hub protein promiscuity; secondly, intrinsically disordered proteins can bind to structured hub proteins; and thirdly, intrinsic disorder can provide flexible linkers between functional domains with the linkers enabling mechanisms that facilitate binding diversity. An important research direction will be to determine what fraction of protein-protein interaction in regulatory networks relies on intrinsic disorder.     

Hubs with network motifs organize modularity dynamically in the protein-protein interaction network of yeast

Background

It has been recognized that modular organization pervades biological complexity. Based on network analysis, ‘party hubs’ and ‘date hubs’ were proposed to understand the basic principle of module organization of biomolecular networks. However, recent study on hubs has suggested that there is no clear evidence for coexistence of ‘party hubs’ and ‘date hubs’. Thus, an open question has been raised as to whether or not ‘party hubs’ and ‘date hubs’ truly exist in yeast interactome.

Methodology

In contrast to previous studies focusing on the partners of a hub or the individual proteins around the hub, our work aims to study the network motifs of a hub or interactions among individual proteins including the hub and its neighbors. Depending on the relationship between a hub''s network motifs and protein complexes, we define two new types of hubs, ‘motif party hubs’ and ‘motif date hubs’, which have the same characteristics as the original ‘party hubs’ and ‘date hubs’ respectively. The network motifs of these two types of hubs display significantly different features in spatial distribution (or cellular localizations), co-expression in microarray data, controlling topological structure of network, and organizing modularity.

Conclusion

By virtue of network motifs, we basically solved the open question about ‘party hubs’ and ‘date hubs’ which was raised by previous studies. Specifically, at the level of network motifs instead of individual proteins, we found two types of hubs, motif party hubs (mPHs) and motif date hubs (mDHs), whose network motifs display distinct characteristics on biological functions. In addition, in this paper we studied network motifs from a different viewpoint. That is, we show that a network motif should not be merely considered as an interaction pattern but be considered as an essential function unit in organizing modules of networks.     

Molecular basis for evolving modularity in the yeast protein interaction network

Scale-free networks are generically defined by a power-law distribution of node connectivities. Vastly different graph topologies fit this law, ranging from the assortative, with frequent similar-degree node connections, to a modular structure. Using a metric to determine the extent of modularity, we examined the yeast protein network and found it to be significantly self-dissimilar. By orthologous node categorization, we established the evolutionary trend in the network, from an “emerging” assortative network to a present-day modular topology. The evolving topology fits a generic connectivity distribution but with a progressive enrichment in intramodule hubs that avoid each other. Primeval tolerance to random node failure is shown to evolve toward resilience to hub failure, thus removing the fragility often ascribed to scale-free networks. This trend is algorithmically reproduced by adopting a connectivity accretion law that disfavors like-degree connections for large-degree nodes. The selective advantage of this trend relates to the need to prevent a failed hub from inducing failure in an adjacent hub. The molecular basis for the evolutionary trend is likely rooted in the high-entropy penalty entailed in the association of two intramodular hubs.     

Identification of transient hub proteins and the possible structural basis for their multiple interactions

Proteins that can interact with multiple partners play central roles in the network of protein-protein interactions. They are called hub proteins, and recently it was suggested that an abundance of intrinsically disordered regions on their surfaces facilitates their binding to multiple partners. However, in those studies, the hub proteins were identified as proteins with multiple partners, regardless of whether the interactions were transient or permanent. As a result, a certain number of hub proteins are subunits of stable multi-subunit proteins, such as supramolecules. It is well known that stable complexes and transient complexes have different structural features, and thus the statistics based on the current definition of hub proteins will hide the true nature of hub proteins. Therefore, in this paper, we first describe a new approach to identify proteins with multiple partners dynamically, using the Protein Data Bank, and then we performed statistical analyses of the structural features of these proteins. We refer to the proteins as transient hub proteins or sociable proteins, to clarify the difference with hub proteins. As a result, we found that the main difference between sociable and nonsociable proteins is not the abundance of disordered regions, in contrast to the previous studies, but rather the structural flexibility of the entire protein. We also found greater predominance of charged and polar residues in sociable proteins than previously reported.     

Evolutionary and physiological importance of hub proteins

It has been claimed that proteins with more interaction partners (hubs) are both physiologically more important (i.e., less dispensable) and, owing to an assumed high density of binding sites, slow evolving. Not all analyses, however, support these results, probably because of biased and less-than reliable global protein interaction data. Here we provide the first examination of these issues using a comprehensive literature-curated dataset of well-substantiated protein interactions in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Whereas use of less reliable yeast two-hybrid data alone can reject the possibility that local connectivity correlates with measures of dispensability, in higher quality datasets a relatively robust correlation is observed. In contrast, local connectivity does not correlate with the rate of protein evolution even in reliable datasets. This perhaps surprising lack of correlation with evolutionary rate appears in part to arise from the fact that hub proteins do not have a higher density of residues associated with binding. However, hub proteins do have at least one other set of unusual features, namely rapid turnover and regulation, as manifest in high mRNA decay rates and a large number of phosphorylation sites. This, we suggest, is an adaptation to minimize unwanted activation of pathways that might be mediated by adventitious binding to hubs, were they to actively persist longer than required at any given time point. We conclude that hub proteins are more important for cellular growth rate and under tight regulation but are not slow evolving.     

Protein Connectivity and Protein Complexity Promotes Human Gene Duplicability in a Mutually Exclusive Manner

It has previously been reported that protein complexity (i.e. number of subunits in a protein complex) is negatively correlated to gene duplicability in yeast as well as in humans. However, unlike in yeast, protein connectivity in a protein–protein interaction network has a positive correlation with gene duplicability in human genes. In the present study, we have analyzed 1732 human and 1269 yeast proteins that are present both in a protein–protein interaction network as well as in a protein complex network. In the human case, we observed that both protein connectivity and protein complexity complement each other in a mutually exclusive manner over gene duplicability in a positive direction. Analysis of human haploinsufficient proteins and large protein complexes (complex size >10) shows that when protein connectivity does not have any direct association with gene duplicability, there exists a positive correlation between gene duplicability and protein complexity. The same trend, however, is not found in case of yeast, where both protein connectivity and protein complexity independently guide gene duplicability in the negative direction. We conclude that the higher rate of duplication of human genes may be attributed to organismal complexity either by increasing connectivity in the protein–protein interaction network or by increasing protein complexity.     

Revisiting Date and Party Hubs: Novel Approaches to Role Assignment in Protein Interaction Networks

The idea of “date” and “party” hubs has been influential in the study of protein–protein interaction networks. Date hubs display low co-expression with their partners, whilst party hubs have high co-expression. It was proposed that party hubs are local coordinators whereas date hubs are global connectors. Here, we show that the reported importance of date hubs to network connectivity can in fact be attributed to a tiny subset of them. Crucially, these few, extremely central, hubs do not display particularly low expression correlation, undermining the idea of a link between this quantity and hub function. The date/party distinction was originally motivated by an approximately bimodal distribution of hub co-expression; we show that this feature is not always robust to methodological changes. Additionally, topological properties of hubs do not in general correlate with co-expression. However, we find significant correlations between interaction centrality and the functional similarity of the interacting proteins. We suggest that thinking in terms of a date/party dichotomy for hubs in protein interaction networks is not meaningful, and it might be more useful to conceive of roles for protein-protein interactions rather than for individual proteins.     

Promiscuous domains: facilitating stability of the yeast protein-protein interaction network

Domain-domain interactions are a critical type of the mechanisms mediating protein-protein interactions (PPIs). For a given protein domain, its ability to combine with distinct domains is usually referred to as promiscuity or versatility. Interestingly, a previous study has reported that a domain's promiscuity may reflect its ability to interact with other domains in human proteins. In this work, promiscuous domains were first identified from the yeast genome. Then, we sought to determine what roles promiscuous domains might play in the PPI network. Mapping the promiscuous domains onto the proteins in this network revealed that, consistent with the previous knowledge, the hub proteins were significantly enriched with promiscuous domains. We also found that the set of hub proteins were not the same set as those proteins with promiscuous domains, although there was some overlap. Analysis of the topological properties of this yeast PPI network showed that the characteristic path length of the network increased significantly after deleting proteins with promiscuous domains. This indicated that communication between two proteins was longer and the network stability decreased. These observations suggested that, as the hub proteins, proteins with promiscuous domains might play a role in maintaining network stability. In addition, functional analysis revealed that proteins with promiscuous domains mainly participated in the "Folding, Sorting, and Degradation" and "Replication and Repair" biological pathways, and that they significantly execute key molecular functions, such as "nucleoside-triphosphatase activity (GO:0017111)."     

The genetic network of greater sage‐grouse: Range‐wide identification of keystone hubs of connectivity

Genetic networks can characterize complex genetic relationships among groups of individuals, which can be used to rank nodes most important to the overall connectivity of the system. Ranking allows scarce resources to be guided toward nodes integral to connectivity. The greater sage‐grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) is a species of conservation concern that breeds on spatially discrete leks that must remain connected by genetic exchange for population persistence. We genotyped 5,950 individuals from 1,200 greater sage‐grouse leks distributed across the entire species’ geographic range. We found a small‐world network composed of 458 nodes connected by 14,481 edges. This network was composed of hubs—that is, nodes facilitating gene flow across the network—and spokes—that is, nodes where connectivity is served by hubs. It is within these hubs that the greatest genetic diversity was housed. Using indices of network centrality, we identified hub nodes of greatest conservation importance. We also identified keystone nodes with elevated centrality despite low local population size. Hub and keystone nodes were found across the entire species’ contiguous range, although nodes with elevated importance to network‐wide connectivity were found more central: especially in northeastern, central, and southwestern Wyoming and eastern Idaho. Nodes among which genes are most readily exchanged were mostly located in Montana and northern Wyoming, as well as Utah and eastern Nevada. The loss of hub or keystone nodes could lead to the disintegration of the network into smaller, isolated subnetworks. Protecting both hub nodes and keystone nodes will conserve genetic diversity and should maintain network connections to ensure a resilient and viable population over time. Our analysis shows that network models can be used to model gene flow, offering insights into its pattern and process, with application to prioritizing landscapes for conservation.     

Computational studies of the structure, dynamics and native content of amyloid-like fibrils of ribonuclease A

It is a common belief that some residues of a protein are more important than others. In some cases, point mutations of some residues make butterfly effect on the protein structure and function, but in other cases they do not. In addition, the residues important for the protein function tend to be not only conserved but also coevolved with other interacting residues in a protein. Motivated by these observations, the authors propose that there is a network composed of the residues, the residue-residue coevolution network (RRCN), where nodes are residues and links are set when the coevolutionary interaction strengths between residues are sufficiently large. The authors build the RRCN for the 44 diverse protein families. The interaction strengths are calculated by using McBASC algorithm. After constructing the RRCN, the authors identify residues that have high degree of connectivity (hub nodes), and residues that play a central role in network flow of information (C(I) nodes). The authors show that these residues are likely to be functionally important residues. Moreover, the C(I) nodes appear to be more relevant to the function than the hub nodes. Unlike other similar methods, the method described in this study is solely based on sequences. Therefore, the method can be applied to the function annotation of a wider range of proteins.     

Fine-Scale Dissection of Functional Protein Network Organization by Statistical Network Analysis

Revealing organizational principles of biological networks is an important goal of systems biology. In this study, we sought to analyze the dynamic organizational principles within the protein interaction network by studying the characteristics of individual neighborhoods of proteins within the network based on their gene expression as well as protein-protein interaction patterns. By clustering proteins into distinct groups based on their neighborhood gene expression characteristics, we identify several significant trends in the dynamic organization of the protein interaction network. We show that proteins with distinct neighborhood gene expression characteristics are positioned in specific localities in the protein interaction network thereby playing specific roles in the dynamic network connectivity. Remarkably, our analysis reveals a neighborhood characteristic that corresponds to the most centrally located group of proteins within the network. Further, we show that the connectivity pattern displayed by this group is consistent with the notion of “rich club connectivity” in complex networks. Importantly, our findings are largely reproducible in networks constructed using independent and different datasets.     

Disorder and sequence repeats in hub proteins and their implications for network evolution

Protein interaction networks display approximate scale-free topology, in which hub proteins that interact with a large number of other proteins determine the overall organization of the network. In this study, we aim to determine whether hubs are distinguishable from other networked proteins by specific sequence features. Proteins of different connectednesses were compared in the interaction networks of Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Drosophila melanogaster, Caenorhabditis elegans, and Homo sapienswith respect to the distribution of predicted structural disorder, sequence repeats, low complexity regions, and chain length. Highly connected proteins ("hub proteins") contained significantly more of, and greater proportion of, these sequence features and tended to be longer overall as compared to less connected proteins. These sequence features provide two different functional means for realizing multiple interactions: (1) extended interaction surface and (2) flexibility and adaptability, providing a mechanism for the same region to bind distinct partners. Our view contradicts the prevailing view that scaling in protein interactomes arose from gene duplication and preferential attachment of equivalent proteins. We propose an alternative evolutionary network specialization process, in which certain components of the protein interactome improved their fitness for binding by becoming longer or accruing regions of disorder and/or internal repeats and have therefore become specialized in network organization.     

Divergence pattern of duplicate genes in protein-protein interactions follows the power law

The impact of the biological network structures on the divergence between the two copies of one duplicate gene pair involved in the networks has not been documented on a genome scale. Having analyzed the most recently updated Database of Interacting Proteins (DIP) by incorporating the information for duplicate genes of the same age in yeast, we find that there was a highly significantly positive correlation between the level of connectivity of ancient genes and the number of shared partners of their duplicates in the protein-protein interaction networks. This suggests that duplicate genes with a low ancestral connectivity tend to provide raw materials for functional novelty, whereas those duplicate genes with a high ancestral connectivity tend to create functional redundancy for a genome during the same evolutionary period. Moreover, the difference in the number of partners between two copies of a duplicate pair was found to follow a power-law distribution. This suggests that loss and gain of interacting partners for most duplicate genes with a lower level of ancestral connectivity is largely symmetrical, whereas the "hub duplicate genes" with a higher level of ancient connectivity display an asymmetrical divergence pattern in protein-protein interactions. Thus, it is clear that the protein-protein interaction network structures affect the divergence pattern of duplicate genes. Our findings also provide insights into the origin and development of biological networks.     

Preferential duplication in the sparse part of yeast protein interaction network

Gene duplication is an important mechanism driving the evolution of biomolecular network. Thus, it is expected that there should be a strong relationship between a gene's duplicability and the interactions of its protein product with other proteins in the network. We studied this question in the context of the protein interaction network (PIN) of Saccharomyces cerevisiae. We found that duplicates have, on average, significantly lower clustering coefficient (CC) than singletons, and the proportion of duplicates (PD) decreases steadily with CC. Furthermore, using functional annotation data, we observed a strong negative correlation between PD and the mean CC for functional categories. By partitioning the network into modules and assigning each protein a modularity measure Q(n), we found that CC of a protein is a reflection of its modularity. Moreover, the core components of complexes identified in a recent high-throughput experiment, characterized by high CC, have lower PD than that of the attachments. Subsequently, 2 types of hub were identified by their degree, CC and Q(n). Although PD of intramodular hubs is much less than the network average, PD of intermodular hubs is comparable to, or even higher than, the network average. Our results suggest that high CC, and thus high modularity, pose strong evolutionary constraints on gene duplicability, and gene duplication prefers to happen in the sparse part of PINs.     

Dynamic Hubs Show Competitive and Static Hubs Non-Competitive Regulation of Their Interaction Partners

Date hub proteins have 1 or 2 interaction interfaces but many interaction partners. This raises the question of whether all partner proteins compete for the interaction interface of the hub or if the cell carefully regulates aspects of this process? Here, we have used real-time rendering of protein interaction networks to analyse the interactions of all the 1 or 2 interface hubs of Saccharomyces cerevisiae during the cell cycle. By integrating previously determined structural and gene expression data, and visually hiding the nodes (proteins) and their edges (interactions) during their troughs of expression, we predict when interactions of hubs and their partners are likely to exist. This revealed that 20 out of all 36 one- or two- interface hubs in the yeast interactome fell within two main groups. The first was dynamic hubs with static partners, which can be considered as ‘competitive hubs’. Their interaction partners will compete for the interaction interface of the hub and the success of any interaction will be dictated by the kinetics of interaction (abundance and affinity) and subcellular localisation. The second was static hubs with dynamic partners, which we term ‘non-competitive hubs’. Regulatory mechanisms are finely tuned to lessen the presence and/or effects of competition between the interaction partners of the hub. It is possible that these regulatory processes may also be used by the cell for the regulation of other, non-cell cycle processes.     

Examination of the relationship between essential genes in PPI network and hub proteins in reverse nearest neighbor topology

Background  

In many protein-protein interaction (PPI) networks, densely connected hub proteins are more likely to be essential proteins. This is referred to as the "centrality-lethality rule", which indicates that the topological placement of a protein in PPI network is connected with its biological essentiality. Though such connections are observed in many PPI networks, the underlying topological properties for these connections are not yet clearly understood. Some suggested putative connections are the involvement of essential proteins in the maintenance of overall network connections, or that they play a role in essential protein clusters. In this work, we have attempted to examine the placement of essential proteins and the network topology from a different perspective by determining the correlation of protein essentiality and reverse nearest neighbor topology (RNN).