Cis-regulatory element

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cis-regulatory_element

Cis-regulatory elements (CREs) or Cis-regulatory modules (CRMs) are regions of non-coding DNA which regulate the transcription of neighboring genes. CREs are vital components of genetic regulatory networks, which in turn control morphogenesis, the development of anatomy, and other aspects of embryonic development, studied in evolutionary developmental biology.

CREs are found in the vicinity of the genes that they regulate. CREs typically regulate gene transcription by binding to transcription factors. A single transcription factor may bind to many CREs, and hence control the expression of many genes (pleiotropy). The Latin prefix cis means "on this side", i.e. on the same molecule of DNA as the gene(s) to be transcribed.

CRMs are stretches of DNA, usually 100–1000 DNA base pairs in length, where a number of transcription factors can bind and regulate expression of nearby genes and regulate their transcription rates. They are labeled as cis because they are typically located on the same DNA strand as the genes they control as opposed to trans, which refers to effects on genes not located on the same strand or farther away, such as transcription factors. One cis-regulatory element can regulate several genes, and conversely, one gene can have several cis-regulatory modules. Cis-regulatory modules carry out their function by integrating the active transcription factors and the associated co-factors at a specific time and place in the cell where this information is read and an output is given.

CREs are often but not always upstream of the transcription site. CREs contrast with trans-regulatory elements (TREs). TREs code for transcription factors.

Overview

Diagram showing at which stages in the DNA-mRNA-protein pathway expression can be controlled

The genome of an organism contains anywhere from a few hundred to thousands of different genes, all encoding a singular product or more. For numerous reasons, including organizational maintenance, energy conservation, and generating phenotypic variance, it is important that genes are only expressed when they are needed. The most efficient way for an organism to regulate gene expression is at the transcriptional level. CREs function to control transcription by acting nearby or within a gene. The most well characterized types of CREs are enhancers and promoters. Both of these sequence elements are structural regions of DNA that serve as transcriptional regulators.

Cis-regulatory modules are one of several types of functional regulatory elements. Regulatory elements are binding sites for transcription factors, which are involved in gene regulation. Cis-regulatory modules perform a large amount of developmental information processing. Cis-regulatory modules are non-random clusters at their specified target site that contain transcription factor binding sites.

The original definition presented cis-regulatory modules as enhancers of cis-acting DNA, which increased the rate of transcription from a linked promoter. However, this definition has changed to define cis-regulatory modules as a DNA sequence with transcription factor binding sites which are clustered into modular structures, including -but not limited to- locus control regions, promoters, enhancers, silencers, boundary control elements and other modulators.

Cis-regulatory modules can be divided into three classes; enhancers, which regulate gene expression positively; insulators, which work indirectly by interacting with other nearby cis-regulatory modules; and silencers that turn off expression of genes.

The design of cis-regulatory modules is such that transcription factors and epigenetic modifications serve as inputs, and the output of the module is the command given to the transcription machinery, which in turn determines the rate of gene transcription or whether it is turned on or off. There are two types of transcription factor inputs: those that determine when the target gene is to be expressed and those that serve as functional drivers, which come into play only during specific situations during development. These inputs can come from different time points, can represent different signal ligands, or can come from different domains or lineages of cells. However, a lot still remains unknown.

Additionally, the regulation of chromatin structure and nuclear organization also play a role in determining and controlling the function of cis-regulatory modules. Thus gene-regulation functions (GRF) provide a unique characteristic of a cis-regulatory module (CRM), relating the concentrations of transcription factors (input) to the promoter activities (output). The challenge is to predict GRFs. This challenge still remains unsolved. In general, gene-regulation functions do not use Boolean logic, although in some cases the approximation of the Boolean logic is still very useful.

The Boolean logic assumption

Within the assumption of the Boolean logic, principles guiding the operation of these modules includes the design of the module which determines the regulatory function. In relation to development, these modules can generate both positive and negative outputs. The output of each module is a product of the various operations performed on it. Common operations include the OR gate – this design indicates that in an output will be given when either input is given, and the AND gate – in this design two different regulatory factors are necessary to make sure that a positive output results. "Toggle Switches" – This design occurs when the signal ligand is absent while the transcription factor is present; this transcription factor ends up acting as a dominant repressor. However, once the signal ligand is present the transcription factor's role as repressor is eliminated and transcription can occur.

Other Boolean logic operations can occur as well, such as sequence specific transcriptional repressors, which when they bind to the cis-regulatory module lead to an output of zero. Additionally, besides influence from the different logic operations, the output of a "cis"-regulatory module will also be influenced by prior events. 4) Cis-regulatory modules must interact with other regulatory elements. For the most part, even with the presence of functional overlap between cis-regulatory modules of a gene, the modules' inputs and outputs tend to not be the same.

While the assumption of Boolean logic is important for systems biology, detailed studies show that in general the logic of gene regulation is not Boolean. This means, for example, that in the case of a cis-regulatory module regulated by two transcription factors, experimentally determined gene-regulation functions can not be described by the 16 possible Boolean functions of two variables. Non-Boolean extensions of the gene-regulatory logic have been proposed to correct for this issue.

Classification

Cis-regulatory modules can be characterized by the information processing that they encode and the organization of their transcription factor binding sites. Additionally, cis-regulatory modules are also characterized by the way they affect the probability, proportion, and rate of transcription. Highly cooperative and coordinated cis-regulatory modules are classified as enhanceosomes. The architecture and the arrangement of the transcription factor binding sites are critical because disruption of the arrangement could cancel out the function. Functional flexible cis-regulatory modules are called billboards. Their transcriptional output is the summation effect of the bound transcription factors. Enhancers affect the probability of a gene being activated, but have little or no effect on rate. The Binary response model acts like an on/off switch for transcription. This model will increase or decrease the amount of cells that transcribe a gene, but it does not affect the rate of transcription. Rheostatic response model describes cis-regulatory modules as regulators of the initiation rate of transcription of its associated gene.

Promoter

Main article: Promoter (genetics)

Promoters are CREs consisting of relatively short sequences of DNA which include the site where transcription is initiated and the region approximately 35 bp upstream or downstream from the initiation site (bp). In eukaryotes, promoters usually have the following four components: the TATA box, a TFIIB recognition site, an initiator, and the downstream core promoter element. It has been found that a single gene can contain multiple promoter sites. In order to initiate transcription of the downstream gene, a host of DNA-binding proteins called transcription factors (TFs) must bind sequentially to this region. Only once this region has been bound with the appropriate set of TFs, and in the proper order, can RNA polymerase bind and begin transcribing the gene.

Enhancers

Main article: Enhancer (genetics)

Enhancers are CREs that influence (enhance) the transcription of genes on the same molecule of DNA and can be found upstream, downstream, within the introns, or even relatively far away from the gene they regulate. Multiple enhancers can act in a coordinated fashion to regulate transcription of one gene. A number of genome-wide sequencing projects have revealed that enhancers are often transcribed to long non-coding RNA (lncRNA) or enhancer RNA (eRNA), whose changes in levels frequently correlate with those of the target gene mRNA.

Silencers

Main article: Silencer (genetics)

Silencers are CREs that can bind transcription regulation factors (proteins) called repressors, thereby preventing transcription of a gene. The term "silencer" can also refer to a region in the 3' untranslated region of messenger RNA, that binds proteins which suppress translation of that mRNA molecule, but this usage is distinct from its use in describing a CRE.

Operators

Operators are CREs in prokaryotes and some eukaryotes that exist within operons, where they can bind proteins called repressors to affect transcription.

Evolutionary role

CREs have an important evolutionary role. The coding regions of genes are often well conserved among organisms; yet different organisms display marked phenotypic diversity. It has been found that polymorphisms occurring within non-coding sequences have a profound effect on phenotype by altering gene expression. Mutations arising within a CRE can generate expression variance by changing the way TFs bind. Tighter or looser binding of regulatory proteins will lead to up- or down-regulated transcription.

Cis-regulatory module in gene regulatory network

The function of a gene regulatory network depends on the architecture of the nodes, whose function is dependent on the multiple cis-regulatory modules. The layout of cis-regulatory modules can provide enough information to generate spatial and temporal patterns of gene expression. During development each domain, where each domain represents a different spatial regions of the embryo, of gene expression will be under the control of different cis-regulatory modules. The design of regulatory modules help in producing feedback, feed forward, and cross-regulatory loops.

Mode of action

Cis-regulatory modules can regulate their target genes over large distances. Several models have been proposed to describe the way that these modules may communicate with their target gene promoter. These include the DNA scanning model, the DNA sequence looping model and the facilitated tracking model. In the DNA scanning model, the transcription factor and cofactor complex form at the cis-regulatory module and then continues to move along the DNA sequence until it finds the target gene promoter. In the looping model, the transcription factor binds to the cis-regulatory module, which then causes the looping of the DNA sequence and allows for the interaction with the target gene promoter. The transcription factor-cis-regulatory module complex causes the looping of the DNA sequence slowly towards the target promoter and forms a stable looped configuration. The facilitated tracking model combines parts of the two previous models.

Identification and computational prediction

Besides experimentally determining CRMs, there are various bioinformatics algorithms for predicting them. Most algorithms try to search for significant combinations of transcription factor binding sites (DNA binding sites) in promoter sequences of co-expressed genes. More advanced methods combine the search for significant motifs with correlation in gene expression datasets between transcription factors and target genes. Both methods have been implemented, for example, in the ModuleMaster. Other programs created for the identification and prediction of cis-regulatory modules include:

INSECT 2.0 is a web server that allows to search Cis-regulatory modules in a genome-wide manner. The program relies on the definition of strict restrictions among the Transcription Factor Binding Sites (TFBSs) that compose the module in order to decrease the false positives rate. INSECT is designed to be user-friendly since it allows automatic retrieval of sequences and several visualizations and links to third-party tools in order to help users to find those instances that are more likely to be true regulatory sites. INSECT 2.0 algorithm was previously published and the algorithm and theory behind it explained in

Stubb uses hidden Markov models to identify statistically significant clusters of transcription factor combinations. It also uses a second related genome to improve the prediction accuracy of the model.

Bayesian Networks use an algorithm that combines site predictions and tissue-specific expression data for transcription factors and target genes of interest. This model also uses regression trees to depict the relationship between the identified cis-regulatory module and the possible binding set of transcription factors.

CRÈME examine clusters of target sites for transcription factors of interest. This program uses a database of confirmed transcription factor binding sites that were annotated across the human genome. A search algorithm is applied to the data set to identify possible combinations of transcription factors, which have binding sites that are close to the promoter of the gene set of interest. The possible cis-regulatory modules are then statistically analyzed and the significant combinations are graphically represented

Active cis-regulatory modules in a genomic sequence have been difficult to identify. Problems in identification arise because often scientists find themselves with a small set of known transcription factors, so it makes it harder to identify statistically significant clusters of transcription factor binding sites. Additionally, high costs limit the use of large whole genome tiling arrays.

Binding sites of gene regulatory factors. Transcription factors binding DNA, RNA-binding proteins and microRNAs binding RNA

Examples

An example of a cis-acting regulatory sequence is the operator in the lac operon. This DNA sequence is bound by the lac repressor, which, in turn, prevents transcription of the adjacent genes on the same DNA molecule. The lac operator is, thus, considered to "act in cis" on the regulation of the nearby genes. The operator itself does not code for any protein or RNA.

In contrast, trans-regulatory elements are diffusible factors, usually proteins, that may modify the expression of genes distant from the gene that was originally transcribed to create them. For example, a transcription factor that regulates a gene on chromosome 6 might itself have been transcribed from a gene on chromosome 11. The term trans-regulatory is constructed from the Latin root trans, which means "across from".

There are cis-regulatory and trans-regulatory elements. Cis-regulatory elements are often binding sites for one or more trans-acting factors.

To summarize, cis-regulatory elements are present on the same molecule of DNA as the gene they regulate whereas trans-regulatory elements can regulate genes distant from the gene from which they were transcribed.

Gene regulatory network

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_regulatory_network

 

Structure of a gene regulatory network

 

Control process of a gene regulatory network

A gene (or genetic) regulatory network (GRN) is a collection of molecular regulators that interact with each other and with other substances in the cell to govern the gene expression levels of mRNA and proteins which, in turn, determine the function of the cell. GRN also play a central role in morphogenesis, the creation of body structures, which in turn is central to evolutionary developmental biology (evo-devo).

The regulator can be DNA, RNA, protein or any combination of two or more of these three that form a complex, such as a specific sequence of DNA and a transcription factor to activate that sequence. The interaction can be direct or indirect (through transcribed RNA or translated protein). In general, each mRNA molecule goes on to make a specific protein (or set of proteins). In some cases this protein will be structural, and will accumulate at the cell membrane or within the cell to give it particular structural properties. In other cases the protein will be an enzyme, i.e., a micro-machine that catalyses a certain reaction, such as the breakdown of a food source or toxin. Some proteins though serve only to activate other genes, and these are the transcription factors that are the main players in regulatory networks or cascades. By binding to the promoter region at the start of other genes they turn them on, initiating the production of another protein, and so on. Some transcription factors are inhibitory.

In single-celled organisms, regulatory networks respond to the external environment, optimising the cell at a given time for survival in this environment. Thus a yeast cell, finding itself in a sugar solution, will turn on genes to make enzymes that process the sugar to alcohol. This process, which we associate with wine-making, is how the yeast cell makes its living, gaining energy to multiply, which under normal circumstances would enhance its survival prospects.

In multicellular animals the same principle has been put in the service of gene cascades that control body-shape. Each time a cell divides, two cells result which, although they contain the same genome in full, can differ in which genes are turned on and making proteins. Sometimes a 'self-sustaining feedback loop' ensures that a cell maintains its identity and passes it on. Less understood is the mechanism of epigenetics by which chromatin modification may provide cellular memory by blocking or allowing transcription. A major feature of multicellular animals is the use of morphogen gradients, which in effect provide a positioning system that tells a cell where in the body it is, and hence what sort of cell to become. A gene that is turned on in one cell may make a product that leaves the cell and diffuses through adjacent cells, entering them and turning on genes only when it is present above a certain threshold level. These cells are thus induced into a new fate, and may even generate other morphogens that signal back to the original cell. Over longer distances morphogens may use the active process of signal transduction. Such signalling controls embryogenesis, the building of a body plan from scratch through a series of sequential steps. They also control and maintain adult bodies through feedback processes, and the loss of such feedback because of a mutation can be responsible for the cell proliferation that is seen in cancer. In parallel with this process of building structure, the gene cascade turns on genes that make structural proteins that give each cell the physical properties it needs.

Overview

At one level, biological cells can be thought of as "partially mixed bags" of biological chemicals – in the discussion of gene regulatory networks, these chemicals are mostly the messenger RNAs (mRNAs) and proteins that arise from gene expression. These mRNA and proteins interact with each other with various degrees of specificity. Some diffuse around the cell. Others are bound to cell membranes, interacting with molecules in the environment. Still others pass through cell membranes and mediate long range signals to other cells in a multi-cellular organism. These molecules and their interactions comprise a gene regulatory network. A typical gene regulatory network looks something like this:

Example of a regulatory network

The nodes of this network can represent genes, proteins, mRNAs, protein/protein complexes or cellular processes. Nodes that are depicted as lying along vertical lines are associated with the cell/environment interfaces, while the others are free-floating and can diffuse. Edges between nodes represent interactions between the nodes, that can correspond to individual molecular reactions between DNA, mRNA, miRNA, proteins or molecular processes through which the products of one gene affect those of another, though the lack of experimentally obtained information often implies that some reactions are not modeled at such a fine level of detail. These interactions can be inductive (usually represented by arrowheads or the + sign), with an increase in the concentration of one leading to an increase in the other, inhibitory (represented with filled circles, blunt arrows or the minus sign), with an increase in one leading to a decrease in the other, or dual, when depending on the circumstances the regulator can activate or inhibit the target node. The nodes can regulate themselves directly or indirectly, creating feedback loops, which form cyclic chains of dependencies in the topological network. The network structure is an abstraction of the system's molecular or chemical dynamics, describing the manifold ways in which one substance affects all the others to which it is connected. In practice, such GRNs are inferred from the biological literature on a given system and represent a distillation of the collective knowledge about a set of related biochemical reactions. To speed up the manual curation of GRNs, some recent efforts try to use text mining, curated databases, network inference from massive data, model checking and other information extraction technologies for this purpose.

Genes can be viewed as nodes in the network, with input being proteins such as transcription factors, and outputs being the level of gene expression. The value of the node depends on a function which depends on the value of its regulators in previous time steps (in the Boolean network described below these are Boolean functions, typically AND, OR, and NOT). These functions have been interpreted as performing a kind of information processing within the cell, which determines cellular behavior. The basic drivers within cells are concentrations of some proteins, which determine both spatial (location within the cell or tissue) and temporal (cell cycle or developmental stage) coordinates of the cell, as a kind of "cellular memory". The gene networks are only beginning to be understood, and it is a next step for biology to attempt to deduce the functions for each gene "node", to help understand the behavior of the system in increasing levels of complexity, from gene to signaling pathway, cell or tissue level.

Mathematical models of GRNs have been developed to capture the behavior of the system being modeled, and in some cases generate predictions corresponding with experimental observations. In some other cases, models have proven to make accurate novel predictions, which can be tested experimentally, thus suggesting new approaches to explore in an experiment that sometimes wouldn't be considered in the design of the protocol of an experimental laboratory. Modeling techniques include differential equations (ODEs), Boolean networks, Petri nets, Bayesian networks, graphical Gaussian network models, Stochastic, and Process Calculi. Conversely, techniques have been proposed for generating models of GRNs that best explain a set of time series observations. Recently it has been shown that ChIP-seq signal of histone modification are more correlated with transcription factor motifs at promoters in comparison to RNA level. Hence it is proposed that time-series histone modification ChIP-seq could provide more reliable inference of gene-regulatory networks in comparison to methods based on expression levels.

Structure and evolution

Global feature

Gene regulatory networks are generally thought to be made up of a few highly connected nodes (hubs) and many poorly connected nodes nested within a hierarchical regulatory regime. Thus gene regulatory networks approximate a hierarchical scale free network topology. This is consistent with the view that most genes have limited pleiotropy and operate within regulatory modules. This structure is thought to evolve due to the preferential attachment of duplicated genes to more highly connected genes. Recent work has also shown that natural selection tends to favor networks with sparse connectivity.

There are primarily two ways that networks can evolve, both of which can occur simultaneously. The first is that network topology can be changed by the addition or subtraction of nodes (genes) or parts of the network (modules) may be expressed in different contexts. The Drosophila Hippo signaling pathway provides a good example. The Hippo signaling pathway controls both mitotic growth and post-mitotic cellular differentiation. Recently it was found that the network the Hippo signaling pathway operates in differs between these two functions which in turn changes the behavior of the Hippo signaling pathway. This suggests that the Hippo signaling pathway operates as a conserved regulatory module that can be used for multiple functions depending on context. Thus, changing network topology can allow a conserved module to serve multiple functions and alter the final output of the network. The second way networks can evolve is by changing the strength of interactions between nodes, such as how strongly a transcription factor may bind to a cis-regulatory element. Such variation in strength of network edges has been shown to underlie between species variation in vulva cell fate patterning of Caenorhabditis worms.

Local feature

Feed-forward loop

Another widely cited characteristic of gene regulatory network is their abundance of certain repetitive sub-networks known as network motifs. Network motifs can be regarded as repetitive topological patterns when dividing a big network into small blocks. Previous analysis found several types of motifs that appeared more often in gene regulatory networks than in randomly generated networks. As an example, one such motif is called feed-forward loops, which consist three nodes. This motif is the most abundant among all possible motifs made up of three nodes, as is shown in the gene regulatory networks of fly, nematode, and human.

The enriched motifs have been proposed to follow convergent evolution, suggesting they are "optimal designs" for certain regulatory purposes. For example, modeling shows that feed-forward loops are able to coordinate the change in node A (in terms of concentration and activity) and the expression dynamics of node C, creating different input-output behaviors. The galactose utilization system of E. coli contains a feed-forward loop which accelerates the activation of galactose utilization operon galETK, potentially facilitating the metabolic transition to galactose when glucose is depleted. The feed-forward loop in the arabinose utilization systems of E.coli delays the activation of arabinose catabolism operon and transporters, potentially avoiding unnecessary metabolic transition due to temporary fluctuations in upstream signaling pathways. Similarly in the Wnt signaling pathway of Xenopus, the feed-forward loop acts as a fold-change detector that responses to the fold change, rather than the absolute change, in the level of β-catenin, potentially increasing the resistance to fluctuations in β-catenin levels. Following the convergent evolution hypothesis, the enrichment of feed-forward loops would be an adaptation for fast response and noise resistance. A recent research found that yeast grown in an environment of constant glucose developed mutations in glucose signaling pathways and growth regulation pathway, suggesting regulatory components responding to environmental changes are dispensable under constant environment.

On the other hand, some researchers hypothesize that the enrichment of network motifs is non-adaptive. In other words, gene regulatory networks can evolve to a similar structure without the specific selection on the proposed input-output behavior. Support for this hypothesis often comes from computational simulations. For example, fluctuations in the abundance of feed-forward loops in a model that simulates the evolution of gene regulatory networks by randomly rewiring nodes may suggest that the enrichment of feed-forward loops is a side-effect of evolution. In another model of gene regulator networks evolution, the ratio of the frequencies of gene duplication and gene deletion show great influence on network topology: certain ratios lead to the enrichment of feed-forward loops and create networks that show features of hierarchical scale free networks. De novo evolution of coherent type 1 feed-forward loops has been demonstrated computationally in response to selection for their hypothesized function of filtering out a short spurious signal, supporting adaptive evolution, but for non-idealized noise, a dynamics-based system of feed-forward regulation with different topology was instead favored.

Bacterial regulatory networks

Regulatory networks allow bacteria to adapt to almost every environmental niche on earth. A network of interactions among diverse types of molecules including DNA, RNA, proteins and metabolites, is utilised by the bacteria to achieve regulation of gene expression. In bacteria, the principal function of regulatory networks is to control the response to environmental changes, for example nutritional status and environmental stress. A complex organization of networks permits the microorganism to coordinate and integrate multiple environmental signals.

One example stress is when the environment suddenly becomes poor of nutrients. This triggers a complex adaptation process in bacteria, such as E. coli. After this environmental change, thousands of genes change expression level. However, these changes are predictable from the topology and logic of the gene network that is reported in RegulonDB. Specifically, on average, the response strength of a gene was predictable from the difference between the numbers of activating and repressing input transcription factors of that gene.

Modelling

Coupled ordinary differential equations

For an example of modelling of the cell cycle with ODEs, see cellular model.

It is common to model such a network with a set of coupled ordinary differential equations (ODEs) or SDEs, describing the reaction kinetics of the constituent parts. Suppose that our regulatory network has ${\displaystyle N}$ nodes, and let ${\displaystyle S_1(t),S_2(t),\dots ,S_N(t)}$ represent the concentrations of the ${\displaystyle N}$ corresponding substances at time ${\displaystyle t}$. Then the temporal evolution of the system can be described approximately by

${\displaystyle \frac{d{S}_j}{dt}=f_j\left(S_1,S_2,\dots ,S_N\right)}$

where the functions ${\displaystyle f_j}$ express the dependence of ${\displaystyle S_j}$ on the concentrations of other substances present in the cell. The functions ${\displaystyle f_j}$ are ultimately derived from basic principles of chemical kinetics or simple expressions derived from these e.g. Michaelis–Menten enzymatic kinetics. Hence, the functional forms of the ${\displaystyle f_j}$ are usually chosen as low-order polynomials or Hill functions that serve as an ansatz for the real molecular dynamics. Such models are then studied using the mathematics of nonlinear dynamics. System-specific information, like reaction rate constants and sensitivities, are encoded as constant parameters.

By solving for the fixed point of the system:

${\displaystyle \frac{d{S}_j}{dt}=0}$

for all ${\displaystyle j}$, one obtains (possibly several) concentration profiles of proteins and mRNAs that are theoretically sustainable (though not necessarily stable). Steady states of kinetic equations thus correspond to potential cell types, and oscillatory solutions to the above equation to naturally cyclic cell types. Mathematical stability of these attractors can usually be characterized by the sign of higher derivatives at critical points, and then correspond to biochemical stability of the concentration profile. Critical points and bifurcations in the equations correspond to critical cell states in which small state or parameter perturbations could switch the system between one of several stable differentiation fates. Trajectories correspond to the unfolding of biological pathways and transients of the equations to short-term biological events. For a more mathematical discussion, see the articles on nonlinearity, dynamical systems, bifurcation theory, and chaos theory.

Boolean network

Main article: Boolean network

The following example illustrates how a Boolean network can model a GRN together with its gene products (the outputs) and the substances from the environment that affect it (the inputs). Stuart Kauffman was amongst the first biologists to use the metaphor of Boolean networks to model genetic regulatory networks.

1. Each gene, each input, and each output is represented by a node in a directed graph in which there is an arrow from one node to another if and only if there is a causal link between the two nodes.
2. Each node in the graph can be in one of two states: on or off.
3. For a gene, "on" corresponds to the gene being expressed; for inputs and outputs, "off" corresponds to the substance being present.
4. Time is viewed as proceeding in discrete steps. At each step, the new state of a node is a Boolean function of the prior states of the nodes with arrows pointing towards it.

The validity of the model can be tested by comparing simulation results with time series observations. A partial validation of a Boolean network model can also come from testing the predicted existence of a yet unknown regulatory connection between two particular transcription factors that each are nodes of the model.

Continuous networks

Continuous network models of GRNs are an extension of the boolean networks described above. Nodes still represent genes and connections between them regulatory influences on gene expression. Genes in biological systems display a continuous range of activity levels and it has been argued that using a continuous representation captures several properties of gene regulatory networks not present in the Boolean model. Formally most of these approaches are similar to an artificial neural network, as inputs to a node are summed up and the result serves as input to a sigmoid function, e.g., but proteins do often control gene expression in a synergistic, i.e. non-linear, way. However, there is now a continuous network model that allows grouping of inputs to a node thus realizing another level of regulation. This model is formally closer to a higher order recurrent neural network. The same model has also been used to mimic the evolution of cellular differentiation and even multicellular morphogenesis.

Stochastic gene networks

Recent experimental results have demonstrated that gene expression is a stochastic process. Thus, many authors are now using the stochastic formalism, after the work by Arkin et al. Works on single gene expression and small synthetic genetic networks, such as the genetic toggle switch of Tim Gardner and Jim Collins, provided additional experimental data on the phenotypic variability and the stochastic nature of gene expression. The first versions of stochastic models of gene expression involved only instantaneous reactions and were driven by the Gillespie algorithm.

Since some processes, such as gene transcription, involve many reactions and could not be correctly modeled as an instantaneous reaction in a single step, it was proposed to model these reactions as single step multiple delayed reactions in order to account for the time it takes for the entire process to be complete.

From here, a set of reactions were proposed that allow generating GRNs. These are then simulated using a modified version of the Gillespie algorithm, that can simulate multiple time delayed reactions (chemical reactions where each of the products is provided a time delay that determines when will it be released in the system as a "finished product").

For example, basic transcription of a gene can be represented by the following single-step reaction (RNAP is the RNA polymerase, RBS is the RNA ribosome binding site, and Pro _i is the promoter region of gene i):

${\displaystyle \text{RNAP}+{\text{Pro}}_i\stackrel{k_{i,bas}}{⟶}{\text{Pro}}_i({\tau }_i^1)+{\text{RBS}}_i({\tau }_i^1)+\text{RNAP}({\tau }_i^2)}$

Furthermore, there seems to be a trade-off between the noise in gene expression, the speed with which genes can switch, and the metabolic cost associated their functioning. More specifically, for any given level of metabolic cost, there is an optimal trade-off between noise and processing speed and increasing the metabolic cost leads to better speed-noise trade-offs.

A recent work proposed a simulator (SGNSim, Stochastic Gene Networks Simulator), that can model GRNs where transcription and translation are modeled as multiple time delayed events and its dynamics is driven by a stochastic simulation algorithm (SSA) able to deal with multiple time delayed events. The time delays can be drawn from several distributions and the reaction rates from complex functions or from physical parameters. SGNSim can generate ensembles of GRNs within a set of user-defined parameters, such as topology. It can also be used to model specific GRNs and systems of chemical reactions. Genetic perturbations such as gene deletions, gene over-expression, insertions, frame shift mutations can also be modeled as well.

The GRN is created from a graph with the desired topology, imposing in-degree and out-degree distributions. Gene promoter activities are affected by other genes expression products that act as inputs, in the form of monomers or combined into multimers and set as direct or indirect. Next, each direct input is assigned to an operator site and different transcription factors can be allowed, or not, to compete for the same operator site, while indirect inputs are given a target. Finally, a function is assigned to each gene, defining the gene's response to a combination of transcription factors (promoter state). The transfer functions (that is, how genes respond to a combination of inputs) can be assigned to each combination of promoter states as desired.

In other recent work, multiscale models of gene regulatory networks have been developed that focus on synthetic biology applications. Simulations have been used that model all biomolecular interactions in transcription, translation, regulation, and induction of gene regulatory networks, guiding the design of synthetic systems.

Prediction

Other work has focused on predicting the gene expression levels in a gene regulatory network. The approaches used to model gene regulatory networks have been constrained to be interpretable and, as a result, are generally simplified versions of the network. For example, Boolean networks have been used due to their simplicity and ability to handle noisy data but lose data information by having a binary representation of the genes. Also, artificial neural networks omit using a hidden layer so that they can be interpreted, losing the ability to model higher order correlations in the data. Using a model that is not constrained to be interpretable, a more accurate model can be produced. Being able to predict gene expressions more accurately provides a way to explore how drugs affect a system of genes as well as for finding which genes are interrelated in a process. This has been encouraged by the DREAM competition which promotes a competition for the best prediction algorithms. Some other recent work has used artificial neural networks with a hidden layer.

Applications

Multiple sclerosis

Main article: Multiple sclerosis

There are three classes of multiple sclerosis: relapsing-remitting (RRMS), primary progressive (PPMS) and secondary progressive (SPMS). Gene regulatory network (GRN) plays a vital role to understand the disease mechanism across these three different multiple sclerosis classes.

Protein–protein interaction

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein%E2%80%93protein_interaction

 

The horseshoe shaped ribonuclease inhibitor (shown as wireframe) forms a protein–protein interaction with the ribonuclease protein. The contacts between the two proteins are shown as coloured patches.

Protein–protein interactions (PPIs) are physical contacts of high specificity established between two or more protein molecules as a result of biochemical events steered by interactions that include electrostatic forces, hydrogen bonding and the hydrophobic effect. Many are physical contacts with molecular associations between chains that occur in a cell or in a living organism in a specific biomolecular context.

Proteins rarely act alone as their functions tend to be regulated. Many molecular processes within a cell are carried out by molecular machines that are built from numerous protein components organized by their PPIs. These physiological interactions make up the so-called interactomics of the organism, while aberrant PPIs are the basis of multiple aggregation-related diseases, such as Creutzfeldt–Jakob and Alzheimer's diseases.

PPIs have been studied with many methods and from different perspectives: biochemistry, quantum chemistry, molecular dynamics, signal transduction, among others. All this information enables the creation of large protein interaction networks – similar to metabolic or genetic/epigenetic networks – that empower the current knowledge on biochemical cascades and molecular etiology of disease, as well as the discovery of putative protein targets of therapeutic interest.

Examples

Electron transfer proteins

In many metabolic reactions, a protein that acts as an electron carrier binds to an enzyme that acts its reductase. After it receives an electron, it dissociates and then binds to the next enzyme that acts its oxidase (i.e. an acceptor of the electron). These interactions between proteins are dependent on highly specific binding between proteins to ensure efficient electron transfer. Examples: mitochondrial oxidative phosphorylation chain system components cytochrome c-reductase / cytochrome c / cytochrome c oxidase; microsomal and mitochondrial P450 systems.

In the case of the mitochondrial P450 systems, the specific residues involved in the binding of the electron transfer protein adrenodoxin to its reductase were identified as two basic Arg residues on the surface of the reductase and two acidic Asp residues on the adrenodoxin. More recent work on the phylogeny of the reductase has shown that these residues involved in protein-protein interactions have been conserved throughout the evolution of this enzyme.

Signal transduction

The activity of the cell is regulated by extracellular signals. Signal propagation inside and/or along the interior of cells depends on PPIs between the various signaling molecules. The recruitment of signaling pathways through PPIs is called signal transduction and plays a fundamental role in many biological processes and in many diseases including Parkinson's disease and cancer.

Membrane transport

A protein may be carrying another protein (for example, from cytoplasm to nucleus or vice versa in the case of the nuclear pore importins).

Cell metabolism

In many biosynthetic processes enzymes interact with each other to produce small compounds or other macromolecules.

Muscle contraction

Physiology of muscle contraction involves several interactions. Myosin filaments act as molecular motors and by binding to actin enables filament sliding. Furthermore, members of the skeletal muscle lipid droplet-associated proteins family associate with other proteins, as activator of adipose triglyceride lipase and its coactivator comparative gene identification-58, to regulate lipolysis in skeletal muscle.

Types

Main article: Multiprotein complex

To describe the types of protein–protein interactions (PPIs) it is important to consider that proteins can interact in a "transient" way (to produce some specific effect in a short time, like a signal transduction) or to interact with other proteins in a "stable" way to form complexes that become molecular machines within the living systems. A protein complex assembly can result in the formation of homo-oligomeric or hetero-oligomeric complexes. In addition to the conventional complexes, as enzyme-inhibitor and antibody-antigen, interactions can also be established between domain-domain and domain-peptide. Another important distinction to identify protein-protein interactions is the way they have been determined, since there are techniques that measure direct physical interactions between protein pairs, named “binary” methods, while there are other techniques that measure physical interactions among groups of proteins, without pairwise determination of protein partners, named “co-complex” methods.

Homo-oligomers vs. hetero-oligomers

Homo-oligomers are macromolecular complexes constituted by only one type of protein subunit. Protein subunits assembly is guided by the establishment of non-covalent interactions in the quaternary structure of the protein. Disruption of homo-oligomers in order to return to the initial individual monomers often requires denaturation of the complex. Several enzymes, carrier proteins, scaffolding proteins, and transcriptional regulatory factors carry out their functions as homo-oligomers. Distinct protein subunits interact in hetero-oligomers, which are essential to control several cellular functions. The importance of the communication between heterologous proteins is even more evident during cell signaling events and such interactions are only possible due to structural domains within the proteins (as described below).

Stable interactions vs. transient interactions

Stable interactions involve proteins that interact for a long time, taking part of permanent complexes as subunits, in order to carry out functional roles. These are usually the case of homo-oligomers (e.g. cytochrome c), and some hetero-oligomeric proteins, as the subunits of ATPase. On the other hand, a protein may interact briefly and in a reversible manner with other proteins in only certain cellular contexts – cell type, cell cycle stage, external factors, presence of other binding proteins, etc. – as it happens with most of the proteins involved in biochemical cascades. These are called transient interactions. For example, some G protein-coupled receptors only transiently bind to G_i/o proteins when they are activated by extracellular ligands, while some G_q-coupled receptors, such as muscarinic receptor M3, pre-couple with G_q proteins prior to the receptor-ligand binding. Interactions between intrinsically disordered protein regions to globular protein domains (i.e. MoRFs) are transient interactions.

Covalent vs. non-covalent

Main articles: Covalent bond and Non-covalent interactions

Covalent interactions are those with the strongest association and are formed by disulphide bonds or electron sharing. While rare, these interactions are determinant in some posttranslational modifications, as ubiquitination and SUMOylation. Non-covalent bonds are usually established during transient interactions by the combination of weaker bonds, such as hydrogen bonds, ionic interactions, Van der Waals forces, or hydrophobic bonds.

Role of water

Water molecules play a significant role in the interactions between proteins. The crystal structures of complexes, obtained at high resolution from different but homologous proteins, have shown that some interface water molecules are conserved between homologous complexes. The majority of the interface water molecules make hydrogen bonds with both partners of each complex. Some interface amino acid residues or atomic groups of one protein partner engage in both direct and water mediated interactions with the other protein partner. Doubly indirect interactions, mediated by two water molecules, are more numerous in the homologous complexes of low affinity. Carefully conducted mutagenesis experiments, e.g. changing a tyrosine residue into a phenylalanine, have shown that water mediated interactions can contribute to the energy of interaction. Thus, water molecules may facilitate the interactions and cross-recognitions between proteins.

Structure

Crystal structure of modified Gramicidin S determined by X-ray crystallography

 

NMR structure of cytochrome C illustrating its dynamics in solution

 

Main articles: X-ray crystallography and Nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy

The molecular structures of many protein complexes have been unlocked by the technique of X-ray crystallography. The first structure to be solved by this method was that of sperm whale myoglobin by Sir John Cowdery Kendrew. In this technique the angles and intensities of a beam of X-rays diffracted by crystalline atoms are detected in a film, thus producing a three-dimensional picture of the density of electrons within the crystal.

Later, nuclear magnetic resonance also started to be applied with the aim of unravelling the molecular structure of protein complexes. One of the first examples was the structure of calmodulin-binding domains bound to calmodulin. This technique is based on the study of magnetic properties of atomic nuclei, thus determining physical and chemical properties of the correspondent atoms or the molecules. Nuclear magnetic resonance is advantageous for characterizing weak PPIs.

Domains

Proteins hold structural domains that allow their interaction with and bind to specific sequences on other proteins:

• Src homology 2 (SH2) domain
  Main article: SH2 domain

SH2 domains are structurally composed by three-stranded twisted beta sheet sandwiched flanked by two alpha-helices. The existence of a deep binding pocket with high affinity for phosphotyrosine, but not for phosphoserine or phosphothreonine, is essential for the recognition of tyrosine phosphorylated proteins, mainly autophosphorylated growth factor receptors. Growth factor receptor binding proteins and phospholipase Cγ are examples of proteins that have SH2 domains.

• Src homology 3 (SH3) domain
  Main article: SH3 domain

Structurally, SH3 domains are constituted by a beta barrel formed by two orthogonal beta sheets and three anti-parallel beta strands. These domains recognize proline enriched sequences, as polyproline type II helical structure (PXXP motifs) in cell signaling proteins like protein tyrosine kinases and the growth factor receptor bound protein 2 (Grb2).

• Phosphotyrosine-binding (PTB) domain
  Main article: PTB domain

PTB domains interact with sequences that contain a phosphotyrosine group. These domains can be found in the insulin receptor substrate.

• LIM domain
  Main article: LIM domain

LIM domains were initially identified in three homeodomain transcription factors (lin11, is11, and mec3). In addition to this homeodomain proteins and other proteins involved in development, LIM domains have also been identified in non-homeodomain proteins with relevant roles in cellular differentiation, association with cytoskeleton and senescence. These domains contain a tandem cysteine-rich Zn²⁺-finger motif and embrace the consensus sequence CX2CX16-23HX2CX2CX2CX16-21CX2C/H/D. LIM domains bind to PDZ domains, bHLH transcription factors, and other LIM domains.

• Sterile alpha motif (SAM) domain
  Main article: SAM domain

SAM domains are composed by five helices forming a compact package with a conserved hydrophobic core. These domains, which can be found in the Eph receptor and the stromal interaction molecule (STIM) for example, bind to non-SAM domain-containing proteins and they also appear to have the ability to bind RNA.

• PDZ domain
  Main article: PDZ domain

PDZ domains were first identified in three guanylate kinases: PSD-95, DlgA and ZO-1. These domains recognize carboxy-terminal tri-peptide motifs (S/TXV), other PDZ domains or LIM domains and bind them through a short peptide sequence that has a C-terminal hydrophobic residue. Some of the proteins identified as having PDZ domains are scaffolding proteins or seem to be involved in ion receptor assembling and receptor-enzyme complexes formation.

• FERM domain
  Main article: FERM domain

FERM domains contain basic residues capable of binding PtdIns(4,5)P₂. Talin and focal adhesion kinase (FAK) are two of the proteins that present FERM domains.

• Calponin homology (CH) domain
  Main article: Calponin homology domain

CH domains are mainly present in cytoskeletal proteins as parvin.

• Pleckstrin homology domain
  Main article: Pleckstrin homology domain

Pleckstrin homology domains bind to phosphoinositides and acid domains in signaling proteins.

• WW domain
  Main article: WW domain

WW domains bind to proline enriched sequences.

• WSxWS motif

Found in cytokine receptors

Properties of the interface

The study of the molecular structure can give fine details about the interface that enables the interaction between proteins. When characterizing PPI interfaces it is important to take into account the type of complex.

Parameters evaluated include size (measured in absolute dimensions Ų or in solvent-accessible surface area (SASA)), shape, complementarity between surfaces, residue interface propensities, hydrophobicity, segmentation and secondary structure, and conformational changes on complex formation.

The great majority of PPI interfaces reflects the composition of protein surfaces, rather than the protein cores, in spite of being frequently enriched in hydrophobic residues, particularly in aromatic residues. PPI interfaces are dynamic and frequently planar, although they can be globular and protruding as well. Based on three structures – insulin dimer, trypsin-pancreatic trypsin inhibitor complex, and oxyhaemoglobin – Cyrus Chothia and Joel Janin found that between 1,130 and 1,720 Ų of surface area was removed from contact with water indicating that hydrophobicity is a major factor of stabilization of PPIs. Later studies refined the buried surface area of the majority of interactions to 1,600±350 Ų. However, much larger interaction interfaces were also observed and were associated with significant changes in conformation of one of the interaction partners. PPIs interfaces exhibit both shape and electrostatic complementarity.

Regulation

• Protein concentration, which in turn are affected by expression levels and degradation rates;
• Protein affinity for proteins or other binding ligands;
• Ligands concentrations (substrates, ions, etc.);
• Presence of other proteins, nucleic acids, and ions;
• Electric fields around proteins.
• Occurrence of covalent modifications;

Experimental methods

Main article: Methods to investigate protein–protein interactions

There are a multitude of methods to detect them. Each of the approaches has its own strengths and weaknesses, especially with regard to the sensitivity and specificity of the method. The most conventional and widely used high-throughput methods are yeast two-hybrid screening and affinity purification coupled to mass spectrometry.

Principles of yeast and mammalian two-hybrid systems

Yeast two-hybrid screening

Main article: Two-hybrid screening

This system was firstly described in 1989 by Fields and Song using Saccharomyces cerevisiae as biological model. Yeast two hybrid allows the identification of pairwise PPIs (binary method) in vivo, in which the two proteins are tested for biophysically direct interaction. The Y2H is based on the functional reconstitution of the yeast transcription factor Gal4 and subsequent activation of a selective reporter such as His3. To test two proteins for interaction, two protein expression constructs are made: one protein (X) is fused to the Gal4 DNA-binding domain (DB) and a second protein (Y) is fused to the Gal4 activation domain (AD). In the assay, yeast cells are transformed with these constructs. Transcription of reporter genes does not occur unless bait (DB-X) and prey (AD-Y) interact with each other and form a functional Gal4 transcription factor. Thus, the interaction between proteins can be inferred by the presence of the products resultant of the reporter gene expression. In cases in which the reporter gene expresses enzymes that allow the yeast to synthesize essential amino acids or nucleotides, yeast growth under selective media conditions indicates that the two proteins tested are interacting. Recently, software to detect and prioritize protein interactions was published.

Despite its usefulness, the yeast two-hybrid system has limitations. It uses yeast as main host system, which can be a problem when studying proteins that contain mammalian-specific post-translational modifications. The number of PPIs identified is usually low because of a high false negative rate; and, understates membrane proteins, for example.

In initial studies that utilized Y2H, proper controls for false positives (e.g. when DB-X activates the reporter gene without the presence of AD-Y) were frequently not done, leading to a higher than normal false positive rate. An empirical framework must be implemented to control for these false positives. Limitations in lower coverage of membrane proteins have been overcoming by the emergence of yeast two-hybrid variants, such as the membrane yeast two-hybrid (MYTH) and the split-ubiquitin system, which are not limited to interactions that occur in the nucleus; and, the bacterial two-hybrid system, performed in bacteria;

Principle of tandem affinity purification

Affinity purification coupled to mass spectrometry

Main article: Mass spectrometry

Affinity purification coupled to mass spectrometry mostly detects stable interactions and thus better indicates functional in vivo PPIs. This method starts by purification of the tagged protein, which is expressed in the cell usually at in vivo concentrations, and its interacting proteins (affinity purification). One of the most advantageous and widely used methods to purify proteins with very low contaminating background is the tandem affinity purification, developed by Bertrand Seraphin and Matthias Mann and respective colleagues. PPIs can then be quantitatively and qualitatively analysed by mass spectrometry using different methods: chemical incorporation, biological or metabolic incorporation (SILAC), and label-free methods. Furthermore, network theory has been used to study the whole set of identified protein-protein interactions in cells.

Nucleic acid programmable protein array (NAPPA)

This system was first developed by LaBaer and colleagues in 2004 by using in vitro transcription and translation system. They use DNA template encoding the gene of interest fused with GST protein, and it was immobilized in the solid surface. Anti-GST antibody and biotinylated plasmid DNA were bounded in aminopropyltriethoxysilane (APTES)-coated slide. BSA can improve the binding efficiency of DNA. Biotinylated plasmid DNA was bound by avidin. New protein was synthesized by using cell-free expression system i.e. rabbit reticulocyte lysate (RRL), and then the new protein was captured through anti-GST antibody bounded on the slide. To test protein-protein interaction, the targeted protein cDNA and query protein cDNA were immobilized in a same coated slide. By using in vitro transcription and translation system, targeted and query protein was synthesized by the same extract. The targeted protein was bound to array by antibody coated in the slide and query protein was used to probe the array. The query protein was tagged with hemagglutinin (HA) epitope. Thus, the interaction between the two proteins was visualized with the antibody against HA.

Intragenic complementation

When multiple copies of a polypeptide encoded by a gene form a complex, this protein structure is referred to as a multimer. When a multimer is formed from polypeptides produced by two different mutant alleles of a particular gene, the mixed multimer may exhibit greater functional activity than the unmixed multimers formed by each of the mutants alone. In such a case, the phenomenon is referred to as intragenic complementation (also called inter-allelic complementation). Intragenic complementation has been demonstrated in many different genes in a variety of organisms including the fungi Neurospora crassa, Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Schizosaccharomyces pombe; the bacterium Salmonella typhimurium; the virus bacteriophage T4, an RNA virus and humans. In such studies, numerous mutations defective in the same gene were often isolated and mapped in a linear order on the basis of recombination frequencies to form a genetic map of the gene. Separately, the mutants were tested in pairwise combinations to measure complementation. An analysis of the results from such studies led to the conclusion that intragenic complementation, in general, arises from the interaction of differently defective polypeptide monomers to form a multimer. Genes that encode multimer-forming polypeptides appear to be common. One interpretation of the data is that polypeptide monomers are often aligned in the multimer in such a way that mutant polypeptides defective at nearby sites in the genetic map tend to form a mixed multimer that functions poorly, whereas mutant polypeptides defective at distant sites tend to form a mixed multimer that functions more effectively. Direct interaction of two nascent proteins emerging from nearby ribosomes appears to be a general mechanism for homo-oligomer (multimer) formation. Hundreds of protein oligomers were identified that assemble in human cells by such an interaction. The most prevalent form of interaction is between the N-terminal regions of the interacting proteins. Dimer formation appears to be able to occur independently of dedicated assembly machines. The intermolecular forces likely responsible for self-recognition and multimer formation were discussed by Jehle.

Other potential methods

Diverse techniques to identify PPIs have been emerging along with technology progression. These include co-immunoprecipitation, protein microarrays, analytical ultracentrifugation, light scattering, fluorescence spectroscopy, luminescence-based mammalian interactome mapping (LUMIER), resonance-energy transfer systems, mammalian protein–protein interaction trap, electro-switchable biosurfaces, protein-fragment complementation assay, as well as real-time label-free measurements by surface plasmon resonance, and calorimetry.

Computational methods

Text mining protocol.

Computational prediction of protein–protein interactions

The experimental detection and characterization of PPIs is labor-intensive and time-consuming. However, many PPIs can be also predicted computationally, usually using experimental data as a starting point. However, methods have also been developed that allow the prediction of PPI de novo, that is without prior evidence for these interactions.

Genomic context methods

The Rosetta Stone or Domain Fusion method is based on the hypothesis that interacting proteins are sometimes fused into a single protein in another genome. Therefore, we can predict if two proteins may be interacting by determining if they each have non-overlapping sequence similarity to a region of a single protein sequence in another genome.

The Conserved Neighborhood method is based on the hypothesis that if genes encoding two proteins are neighbors on a chromosome in many genomes, then they are likely functionally related (and possibly physically interacting).

The Phylogenetic Profile method is based on the hypothesis that if two or more proteins are concurrently present or absent across several genomes, then they are likely functionally related. Therefore, potentially interacting proteins can be identified by determining the presence or absence of genes across many genomes and selecting those genes which are always present or absent together.

Text mining methods

Further information: text mining

Publicly available information from biomedical documents is readily accessible through the internet and is becoming a powerful resource for collecting known protein-protein interactions (PPIs), PPI prediction and protein docking. Text mining is much less costly and time-consuming compared to other high-throughput techniques. Currently, text mining methods generally detect binary relations between interacting proteins from individual sentences using rule/pattern-based information extraction and machine learning approaches. A wide variety of text mining applications for PPI extraction and/or prediction are available for public use, as well as repositories which often store manually validated and/or computationally predicted PPIs. Text mining can be implemented in two stages: information retrieval, where texts containing names of either or both interacting proteins are retrieved and information extraction, where targeted information (interacting proteins, implicated residues, interaction types, etc.) is extracted.

There are also studies using phylogenetic profiling, basing their functionalities on the theory that proteins involved in common pathways co-evolve in a correlated fashion across species. Some more complex text mining methodologies use advanced Natural Language Processing (NLP) techniques and build knowledge networks (for example, considering gene names as nodes and verbs as edges). Other developments involve kernel methods to predict protein interactions.

Machine learning methods

Machine-learning technique classification hierarchy.

Many computational methods have been suggested and reviewed for predicting protein-protein interactions. Prediction approaches can be grouped into categories based on predictive evidence: protein sequence, comparative genomics, protein domains, protein tertiary structure, and interaction network topology. The construction of a positive set (known interacting protein pairs) and a negative set (non-interacting protein pairs) is needed for the development of a computational prediction model. Prediction models using machine learning techniques can be broadly classified into two main groups: supervised and unsupervised, based on the labeling of input variables according to the expected outcome.

In 2005, integral membrane proteins of Saccharomyces cerevisiae were analyzed using the mating-based ubiquitin system (mbSUS). The system detects membrane proteins interactions with extracellular signaling proteins Of the 705 integral membrane proteins 1,985 different interactions were traced that involved 536 proteins. To sort and classify interactions a support vector machine was used to define high medium and low confidence interactions. The split-ubiquitin membrane yeast two-hybrid system uses transcriptional reporters to identify yeast transformants that encode pairs of interacting proteins. In 2006, random forest, an example of a supervised technique, was found to be the most-effective machine learning method for protein interaction prediction. Such methods have been applied for discovering protein interactions on human interactome, specifically the interactome of Membrane proteins and the interactome of Schizophrenia-associated proteins.

As of 2020, a model using residue cluster classes (RCCs), constructed from the 3DID and Negatome databases, resulted in 96-99% correctly classified instances of protein-protein interactions. RCCs are a computational vector space that mimics protein fold space and includes all simultaneously contacted residue sets, which can be used to analyze protein structure-function relation and evolution.

Databases

Large scale identification of PPIs generated hundreds of thousands of interactions, which were collected together in specialized biological databases that are continuously updated in order to provide complete interactomes. The first of these databases was the Database of Interacting Proteins (DIP).

Primary databases collect information about published PPIs proven to exist via small-scale or large-scale experimental methods. Examples: DIP, Biomolecular Interaction Network Database (BIND), Biological General Repository for Interaction Datasets (BioGRID), Human Protein Reference Database (HPRD), IntAct Molecular Interaction Database, Molecular Interactions Database (MINT), MIPS Protein Interaction Resource on Yeast (MIPS-MPact), and MIPS Mammalian Protein–Protein Interaction Database (MIPS-MPPI).<

Meta-databases normally result from the integration of primary databases information, but can also collect some original data.

Prediction databases include many PPIs that are predicted using several techniques (main article). Examples: Human Protein–Protein Interaction Prediction Database (PIPs), Interlogous Interaction Database (I2D), Known and Predicted Protein–Protein Interactions (STRING-db), and Unified Human Interactive (UniHI).

The aforementioned computational methods all depend on source databases whose data can be extrapolated to predict novel protein-protein interactions. Coverage differs greatly between databases. In general, primary databases have the fewest total protein interactions recorded as they do not integrate data from multiple other databases, while prediction databases have the most because they include other forms of evidence in addition to experimental. For example, the primary database IntAct has 572,063 interactions, the meta-database APID has 678,000 interactions, and the predictive database STRING has 25,914,693 interactions. However, it is important to note that some of the interactions in the STRING database are only predicted by computational methods such as Genomic Context and not experimentally verified.

Interaction networks

Main article: Interactome

 

Schizophrenia PPI.

Information found in PPIs databases supports the construction of interaction networks. Although the PPI network of a given query protein can be represented in textbooks, diagrams of whole cell PPIs are frankly complex and difficult to generate.

One example of a manually produced molecular interaction map is the Kurt Kohn's 1999 map of cell cycle control. Drawing on Kohn's map, Schwikowski et al. in 2000 published a paper on PPIs in yeast, linking 1,548 interacting proteins determined by two-hybrid screening. They used a layered graph drawing method to find an initial placement of the nodes and then improved the layout using a force-based algorithm.

Bioinformatic tools have been developed to simplify the difficult task of visualizing molecular interaction networks and complement them with other types of data. For instance, Cytoscape is an open-source software widely used and many plugins are currently available. Pajek software is advantageous for the visualization and analysis of very large networks.

Identification of functional modules in PPI networks is an important challenge in bioinformatics. Functional modules means a set of proteins that are highly connected to each other in PPI network. It is almost similar problem as community detection in social networks. There are some methods such as Jactive modules and MoBaS. Jactive modules integrate PPI network and gene expression data where as MoBaS integrate PPI network and Genome Wide association Studies.

Protein-protein relationships are often the result of multiple types of interactions or are deduced from different approaches, including co-localization, direct interaction, suppressive genetic interaction, additive genetic interaction, physical association, and other associations.

Signed interaction networks

The protein protein interactions are displayed in a signed network that describes what type of interactions that are taking place

Protein–protein interactions often result in one of the interacting proteins either being 'activated' or 'repressed'. Such effects can be indicated in a PPI network by "signs" (e.g. "activation" or "inhibition"). Although such attributes have been added to networks for a long time, Vinayagam et al. (2014) coined the term Signed network for them. Signed networks are often expressed by labeling the interaction as either positive or negative. A positive interaction is one where the interaction results in one of the proteins being activated. Conversely, a negative interaction indicates that one of the proteins being inactivated.

Protein–protein interaction networks are often constructed as a result of lab experiments such as yeast two-hybrid screens or 'affinity purification and subsequent mass spectrometry techniques. However these methods do not provide the layer of information needed in order to determine what type of interaction is present in order to be able to attribute signs to the network diagrams.

RNA interference screens

RNA interference (RNAi) screens (repression of individual proteins between transcription and translation) are one method that can be utilized in the process of providing signs to the protein-protein interactions. Individual proteins are repressed and the resulting phenotypes are analyzed. A correlating phenotypic relationship (i.e. where the inhibition of either of two proteins results in the same phenotype) indicates a positive, or activating relationship. Phenotypes that do not correlate (i.e. where the inhibition of either of two proteins results in two different phenotypes) indicate a negative or inactivating relationship. If protein A is dependent on protein B for activation then the inhibition of either protein A or B will result in a cell losing the service that is provided by protein A and the phenotypes will be the same for the inhibition of either A or B. If, however, protein A is inactivated by protein B then the phenotypes will differ depending on which protein is inhibited (inhibit protein B and it can no longer inactivate protein A leaving A active however inactivate A and there is nothing for B to activate since A is inactive and the phenotype changes). Multiple RNAi screens need to be performed in order to reliably appoint a sign to a given protein-protein interaction. Vinayagam et al. who devised this technique state that a minimum of nine RNAi screens are required with confidence increasing as one carries out more screens.

As therapeutic targets

Modulation of PPI is challenging and is receiving increasing attention by the scientific community. Several properties of PPI such as allosteric sites and hotspots, have been incorporated into drug-design strategies. The relevance of PPI as putative therapeutic targets for the development of new treatments is particularly evident in cancer, with several ongoing clinical trials within this area. The consensus among these promising targets is, nonetheless, denoted in the already available drugs on the market to treat a multitude of diseases. Examples are Tirobifan, inhibitor of the glycoprotein IIb/IIIa, used as a cardiovascular drug, and Maraviroc, inhibitor of the CCR5-gp120 interaction, used as anti-HIV drug. Recently, Amit Jaiswal and others were able to develop 30 peptides using protein–protein interaction studies to inhibit telomerase recruitment towards telomeres.