Popular Computational Methods to Assess Multiprotein Complexes Derived From Label-Free Affinity Purification and Mass Spectrometry (AP-MS) Experiments

被引:40
作者
Armean, Irina M. [1 ]
Lilley, Kathryn S. [1 ]
Trotter, Matthew W. B. [2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Cambridge, Dept Biochem, Cambridge Ctr Prote, Cambridge CB2 1GA, England
[2] CITRE, Seville 41092, Spain
基金
英国生物技术与生命科学研究理事会;
关键词
PROTEIN-PROTEIN INTERACTIONS; MOLECULAR INTERACTION DATABASE; INTERACTION NETWORK; GENE FUSION; FUNCTIONAL ASSOCIATIONS; PEPTIDE IDENTIFICATION; PHYLOGENETIC PROFILES; SEARCH ALGORITHMS; GLOBAL LANDSCAPE; NEXT-GENERATION;
D O I
10.1074/mcp.R112.019554
中图分类号
Q5 [生物化学];
学科分类号
070307 [化学生物学];
摘要
Advances in sensitivity, resolution, mass accuracy, and throughput have considerably increased the number of protein identifications made via mass spectrometry. Despite these advances, state-of-the-art experimental methods for the study of protein-protein interactions yield more candidate interactions than may be expected biologically owing to biases and limitations in the experimental methodology. In silico methods, which distinguish between true and false interactions, have been developed and applied successfully to reduce the number of false positive results yielded by physical interaction assays. Such methods may be grouped according to: (1) the type of data used: methods based on experiment-specific measurements (e.g., spectral counts or identification scores) versus methods that extract knowledge encoded in external annotations (e.g., public interaction and functional categorisation databases); (2) the type of algorithm applied: the statistical description and estimation of physical protein properties versus predictive supervised machine learning or text-mining algorithms; (3) the type of protein relation evaluated: direct (binary) interaction of two proteins in a cocomplex versus probability of any functional relationship between two proteins (e. g., co-occurrence in a pathway, sub cellular compartment); and (4) initial motivation: elucidation of experimental data by evaluation versus prediction of novel protein-protein interaction, to be experimentally validated a posteriori. This work reviews several popular computational scoring methods and software platforms for protein-protein interactions evaluation according to their methodology, comparative strengths and weaknesses, data representation, accessibility, and availability. The scoring methods and platforms described include: CompPASS, SAINT, Decontaminator, MINT, IntAct, STRING, and FunCoup. References to related work are provided throughout in order to provide a concise but thorough introduction to a rapidly growing interdisciplinary field of investigation. Molecular & Cellular Proteomics 12: 10.1074/mcp.R112.019554, 1-13, 2013.
引用
收藏
页码:1 / 13
页数:13
相关论文
共 169 条
[1]
The cell as a collection of protein machines: Preparing the next generation of molecular biologists [J].
Alberts, B .
CELL, 1998, 92 (03) :291-294
[2]
Comparative interactomics with Funcoup 2.0 [J].
Alexeyenko, Andrey ;
Schmitt, Thomas ;
Tjarnberg, Andreas ;
Guala, Dmitri ;
Frings, Oliver ;
Sonnhammer, Erik L. L. .
NUCLEIC ACIDS RESEARCH, 2012, 40 (D1) :D821-D828
[3]
Global networks of functional coupling in eukaryotes from comprehensive data integration [J].
Alexeyenko, Andrey ;
Sonnhammer, Erik L. L. .
GENOME RESEARCH, 2009, 19 (06) :1107-1116
[4]
[Anonymous], 2006, Elements of Information Theory
[5]
PSICQUIC and PSISCORE: accessing and scoring molecular interactions [J].
Aranda, Bruno ;
Blankenburg, Hagen ;
Kerrien, Samuel ;
Brinkman, Fiona S. L. ;
Ceol, Arnaud ;
Chautard, Emilie ;
Dana, Jose M. ;
De Las Rivas, Javier ;
Dumousseau, Marine ;
Galeota, Eugenia ;
Gaulton, Anna ;
Goll, Johannes ;
Hancock, Robert E. W. ;
Isserlin, Ruth ;
Jimenez, Rafael C. ;
Kerssemakers, Jules ;
Khadake, Jyoti ;
Lynn, David J. ;
Michaut, Magali ;
O'Kelly, Gavin ;
Ono, Keiichiro ;
Orchard, Sandra ;
Prieto, Carlos ;
Razick, Sabry ;
Rigina, Olga ;
Salwinski, Lukasz ;
Simonovic, Milan ;
Velankar, Sameer ;
Winter, Andrew ;
Wu, Guanming ;
Bader, Gary D. ;
Cesareni, Gianni ;
Donaldson, Ian M. ;
Eisenberg, David ;
Kleywegt, Gerard J. ;
Overington, John ;
Ricard-Blum, Sylvie ;
Tyers, Mike ;
Albrecht, Mario ;
Hermjakob, Henning .
NATURE METHODS, 2011, 8 (07) :528-529
[6]
Gene Ontology: tool for the unification of biology [J].
Ashburner, M ;
Ball, CA ;
Blake, JA ;
Botstein, D ;
Butler, H ;
Cherry, JM ;
Davis, AP ;
Dolinski, K ;
Dwight, SS ;
Eppig, JT ;
Harris, MA ;
Hill, DP ;
Issel-Tarver, L ;
Kasarskis, A ;
Lewis, S ;
Matese, JC ;
Richardson, JE ;
Ringwald, M ;
Rubin, GM ;
Sherlock, G .
NATURE GENETICS, 2000, 25 (01) :25-29
[7]
Babu M., 2012, NATURE
[8]
Pathguide: a Pathway Resource List [J].
Bader, Gary D. ;
Cary, Michael P. ;
Sander, Chris .
NUCLEIC ACIDS RESEARCH, 2006, 34 :D504-D506
[9]
Bader GD, 2003, NUCLEIC ACIDS RES, V31, P248, DOI 10.1093/nar/gkg056
[10]
Comparative evaluation of tandem MS search algorithms using a target-decoy search strategy [J].
Balgley, Brian M. ;
Laudeman, Tom ;
Yang, Li ;
Song, Tao ;
Lee, Cheng S. .
MOLECULAR & CELLULAR PROTEOMICS, 2007, 6 (09) :1599-1608