skip to main content
10.1145/3307339.3342150acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesbcbConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Public Access

Integration of Heterogeneous Experimental Data Improves Global Map of Human Protein Complexes

Published:04 September 2019Publication History

ABSTRACT

Protein complexes play a significant role in the core functionality of cells. These complexes are typically identified by detecting densely connected subgraphs in protein-protein interaction (PPI) networks. Recently, multiple large-scale mass spectrometry-based experiments have significantly increased the availability of PPI data in order to further expand the set of known complexes. However, high-throughput experimental data generally are incomplete, show limited agreement between experiments, and show frequent false positive interactions. There is a need for computational approaches that can address these limitations in order to improve the coverage and accuracy of human protein complexes. Here, we present a new method that integrates data from multiple heterogeneous experiments and sources in order to increase the reliability and coverage of predicted protein complexes. We first fused the heterogeneous data into a feature matrix and trained classifiers to score pairwise protein interactions. We next used graph based methods to combine pairwise interactions into predicted protein complexes. Our approach improves the accuracy and coverage of protein pairwise interactions, accurately identifies known complexes, and suggests both novel additions to known complexes and entirely new complexes. Our results suggest that integration of heterogeneous experimental data helps improve the reliability and coverage of diverse high-throughput mass-spectrometry experiments, leading to an improved global map of human protein complexes.

References

  1. B. Adamcsek et almbox. 2006. CFinder: locating cliques and overlapping modules in biological networks . Bioinformatics , Vol. 22, 8 (2006), 1021--1023. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. M. Altaf-Ul-Amin et almbox. 2006. Development and implementation of an algorithm for detection of protein complexes in large interaction networks. BMC Bioinformatics , Vol. 7, 1 (2006), 207.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. G. D. Bader and C. W.V. Hogue. 2003. An automated method for finding molecular complexes in large protein interaction networks. BMC Bioinformatics , Vol. 4, 2 (2003).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. B. Berger et almbox. 2013. Computational solutions for omics data. Nat Rev Genet , Vol. 14 (2013), 333--346.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. T. Berggrard et almbox. 2007. Methods for the detection and analysis of protein-protein interactions. Proteomics , Vol. 7, 16 (2007), 2833--2842.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. B. Diedrich et almbox. 2017. Discrete cytosolic macromolecular BRAF complexes exhibit distinct activities and composition. EMBO J , Vol. 36, 5 (2017), 646--663.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. K. Drew et almbox. 2017. Integration of over 9,000 mass spectrometry experiments builds a global map of human protein complexes. Mol Syst Biol , Vol. 13, 6 (2017), 932.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. T.K.B. Gandhi et almbox. 2006. Analysis of the human protein interactome and comparison with yeast, worm and fly interaction datasets. Nat Genet , Vol. 38 (2006), 285--293.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. J. I. Garzón et almbox. 2016. A computational interactome and functional annotation for the human proteome. eLife , Vol. 5 (2016), e18715.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. A. M. Gholami et almbox. 2013. Global proteome analysis of the NCI-60 cell line panel. Cell Rep , Vol. 4, 3 (2013), 609--620.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. M. Giurgiu et almbox. 2019. CORUM: the comprehensive resource of mammalian protein complexes. Nucleic Acids Res , Vol. 47, D1 (2019), D559--D563.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. G. T. Hart et almbox. 2006. How complete are current yeast and human protein-interaction networks? Genome Biol , Vol. 7, 11 (2006), 120.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. G. T. Hart et almbox. 2007. A high-accuracy consensus map of yeast protein complexes reveals modular nature of gene essentiality. BMC Bioinformatics , Vol. 8, 1 (2007), 236.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. M. Y. Hein et almbox. 2015. A human interactome in three quantitative dimensions organized by stoichiometries and abundances. Cell , Vol. 163, 3 (2015), 712--723.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. E. Hirsh and R. Sharan. 2007. Identification of conserved protein complexes based on a model of protein network evolution. Bioinformatics , Vol. 23, 2 (2007), e170--e176. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. E. L. Huttlin et almbox. 2015. The BioPlex network: A systematic exploration of the human interactome. Cell , Vol. 162, 2 (2015), 425--440.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. R. Jansen et almbox. 2003. A Bayesian networks approach for predicting protein-protein interactions from genomic data. Science , Vol. 302, 5644 (2003), 449--453.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. S. H. Jung et almbox. 2009. Protein complex prediction based on simultaneous protein interaction network. Bioinformatics , Vol. 26, 3 (2009), 385--391. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. A. D. King et almbox. 2004. Protein complex prediction via cost-based clustering. Bioinformatics , Vol. 20, 17 (2004), 3013--3020. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. A. C. F. Lewis et almbox. 2012. What evidence is there for the homology of protein-protein interactions? PLOS Comput Biol , Vol. 8 (9 2012), 1--14.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. M. Li et almbox. 2008. Modifying the DPClus algorithm for identifying protein complexes based on new topological structures. BMC Bioinformatics , Vol. 9, 1 (2008), 398.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. X. Li et almbox. 2007. Discovering protein complexes in dense reliable neighborhoods of protein interaction networks. Computational systems bioinformatics / Life Sciences Society. Computational Systems Bioinformatics Conference , Vol. 6 (2007), 157--168.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. G. Liu et almbox. 2009. Complex discovery from weighted PPI networks. Bioinformatics , Vol. 25, 15 (2009), 1891--1897. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Y. Liu et almbox. 2008. Protein interaction predictions from diverse sources. Drug Discov Today , Vol. 13, 9 (2008), 409--416.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. C.-Y. Ma et almbox. 2017. Identification of protein complexes by integrating multiple alignment of protein interaction networks. Bioinformatics , Vol. 33, 11 (2017), 1681--1688.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. T. Nepusz et almbox. 2012. Detecting overlapping protein complexes in protein-protei interaction networks. Nat Methods , Vol. 9 (2012), 471--472.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. L.M. Orre et almbox. 2019. SubCellBarCode: Proteome-wide Mapping of Protein Localization and Relocalization. Mol Cell , Vol. 73, 1 (2019), 166--182.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. L. Ou-Yang et almbox. 2017. A multi-network clustering method for detecting protein complexes from multiple heterogeneous networks. BMC Bioinformatics , Vol. 18, 13 (2017), 463.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. W. Peng et almbox. 2015. Identification of Protein Complexes Using Weighted PageRank-Nibble Algorithm and Core-Attachment Structure. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Computational Biology and Bioinformatics , Vol. 12, 1 (2015), 179--192. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Y. Qi et almbox. 2008. Protein complex identification by supervised graph local clustering. Bioinformatics , Vol. 24, 13 (2008), i250--i268. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. J. Reimand et almbox. 2016. g:Profiler - a web server for functional interpretation of gene lists (2016 update). Nucleic Acids Res , Vol. 44, W1 (2016), W83--W89.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. J. Snider et almbox. 2015. Fundamentals of protein interaction network mapping. Mol Syst Biol , Vol. 11, 12 (2015), 848.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. D. Szklarczyk et almbox. 2016. The STRING database in 2017: quality-controlled protein--protein association networks, made broadly accessible. Nucleic Acids Res , Vol. 45, D1 (2016), D362--D368.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. P. J. Thul et almbox. 2017. A subcellular map of the human proteome. Science , Vol. 356, 6340 (2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. M. Uhlén et almbox. 2015. Tissue-based map of the human proteome. Science , Vol. 347, 6220 (2015).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. The UniProt Consortium. 2017. UniProt: the universal protein knowledgebase. Nucleic Acids Res , Vol. 45 (2017), D158--D169.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  37. C. von Mering et almbox. 2002. Comparative assessment of large-scale data sets of protein-protein interactions. Nature , Vol. 417, 6887 (2002), 399--403.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. C. Wan et almbox. 2015. Panorama of ancient metazoan macromolecular complexes. Nature , Vol. 525, 7569 (2015), 339--344.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. M. Wu et almbox. 2009. A core-attachment based method to detect protein complexes in PPI networks. BMC Bioinformatics , Vol. 10, 1 (2009), 169.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  40. H. Yu et almbox. 2008. High-quality binary protein interaction map of the yeast interactome network. Science , Vol. 322, 5898 (2008), 104--110.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Integration of Heterogeneous Experimental Data Improves Global Map of Human Protein Complexes

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in
        • Published in

          cover image ACM Conferences
          BCB '19: Proceedings of the 10th ACM International Conference on Bioinformatics, Computational Biology and Health Informatics
          September 2019
          716 pages
          ISBN:9781450366663
          DOI:10.1145/3307339

          Copyright © 2019 ACM

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 4 September 2019

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article

          Acceptance Rates

          BCB '19 Paper Acceptance Rate42of157submissions,27%Overall Acceptance Rate254of885submissions,29%

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader