Pairwise Global Alignment of Protein Interaction Networks by Matching Neighborhood Topology

  • Rohit Singh
  • Jinbo Xu
  • Bonnie Berger
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4453)

Abstract

We describe an algorithm, IsoRank, for global alignment of two protein-protein interaction (PPI) networks. IsoRank aims to maximize the overall match between the two networks; in contrast, much of previous work has focused on the local alignment problem— identifying many possible alignments, each corresponding to a local region of similarity. IsoRank is guided by the intuition that a protein should be matched with a protein in the other network if and only if the neighbors of the two proteins can also be well matched. We encode this intuition as an eigenvalue problem, in a manner analogous to Google’s PageRank method. We use IsoRank to compute the first known global alignment between the S. cerevisiae and D. melanogaster PPI networks. The common subgraph has 1420 edges and describes conserved functional components between the two species. Comparisons of our results with those of a well-known algorithm for local network alignment indicate that the globally optimized alignment resolves ambiguity introduced by multiple local alignments. Finally, we interpret the results of global alignment to identify functional orthologs between yeast and fly; our functional ortholog prediction method is much simpler than a recently proposed approach and yet provides results that are more comprehensive.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
  2. 2.
  3. 3.
    Bandyopadhyay, S., Sharan, R., Ideker, T.: Systematic identification of functional orthologs based on protein network comparison. Genome Res. 16(3), 428–435 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Breitkreutz, B.J., Stark, C., Tyers, M.: The GRID: the general repository for interaction datasets. Genome Biology 4(3), R23 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    FlyBase Consortium: The FlyBase database of the drosophila genome projects and community literature. Nucleic Acids Res. 31(1), 172–175 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kelley, B.P., et al.: Pathblast: a tool for alignment of protein interaction networks. Nucleic Acids Res. 32(Web Server issue), W83–88 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Xenarios, I., et al.: DIP, the database of interacting proteins: a research tool for studying cellular networks of protein interactions. Nucleic Acids Res. 30(1), 303–305 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Han, J.D., et al.: Evidence for dynamically organized modularity in the yeast protein-protein interaction network. Nature 430(6995), 88–93 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Miller, J.P., et al.: Large-scale identification of yeast integral membrane protein interactions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 102(34), 12123–12128 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kellis, M., et al.: Methods in comparative genomics: genome correspondence, gene identification and regulatory motif discovery. J. of Computational Biology 11(2-3), 319–355 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Krogan, N.J., et al.: Global landscape of protein complexes in the yeast saccharomyces cerevisiae. Nature 440(7084), 637–643 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Uetz, P., et al.: A comprehensive analysis of protein-protein interactions in saccharomyces cerevisiae. Nature 403(6770), 623–627 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pinter, R.Y., et al.: Alignment of metabolic pathways. Bioinformatics 21(16), 3401–3408 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ito, T., et al.: A comprehensive two-hybrid analysis to explore the yeast protein interactome. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 98(8), 4569–4574 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Flannick, J., Novak, A., Srinivasan, B.S., McAdams, H.H., Batzoglou, S.: Graemlin: general and robust alignment of multiple large interaction networks. Genome Res. 16(9), 1169–1181 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Golub, G.H., Van Loan, C.: Matrix computations. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore (2006)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gat-Viks, I., Tanay, A., Raijman, D., Shamir, R.: A probabilistic methodology for integrating knowledge and experiments on biological networks. J. of Computational Biology 13(2), 165–181 (2006)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Koyuturk, M., Grama, A., Szpankowski, W.: Pairwise local alignment of protein interaction networks guided by models of evolution. In: Proc. of the 9th International Conference on Research in Computational Molecular Biology (RECOMB) (2005)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Maslov, S., Sneppen, K.: Specificity and stability in topology of protein networks. Science 296(5569), 910–913 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nabieva, E., Jim, K., Agarwal, A., Chazelle, B., Singh, M.: Whole-proteome prediction of protein function via graph-theoretic analysis of interaction maps. Bioinformatics 21(Suppl. 1), i302–310 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    O’Brien, K.P., Remm, M., Sonnhammer, E.L.: Inparanoid: a comprehensive database of eukaryotic orthologs. Nucleic Acids Res. 33(Database issue), D476–480 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Papadimitriou, C., Steiglitz, K.: Combinatorial optimization: algorithms and complexity. Dover (1998)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Qi, Y., Klein-Seetharaman, J., Bar-Joseph, Z.: Random forest similarity for protein-protein interaction prediction from multiple sources. Proc. of the Pacific Symposium on Biocomputation (2005)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Singh, R., Xu, J., Berger, B.: Struct2net: Integrating structure into protein-protein interaction prediction. Proceedings of the Pacific Symposium on Biocomputation (2006)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sontag, D., Singh, R., Berger, B.: Probabilistic modeling of systematic errors in yeast two-hybrid experiments. Proceedings of the Pacific Symposium on Biocomputation (to appear, 2007)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Srinivasan, B.S., Novak, A., Flannick, J., Batzoglou, S., McAdams, H.: Integrated protein interaction networks for 11 microbes. Proc of the 10th International Conference on Research in Computational Molecular Biology(RECOMB) (2006)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    von Mering, C., et al.: Comparative assessment of large-scale data sets of protein-protein interactions. Nature 417(6887), 399–403 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Yao, M.Y., Lam, T.W., Ting, H.F.: An even faster and more unifying algorithm for comparing trees via unbalanced bipartite matchings. J. of Algorithms 40, 212 (2006)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Yeang, C.H., Vingron, M.: A joint model of regulatory and metabolic networks. BMC Bioinformatics 7, 332 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Yook, S.H., Oltvai, Z.N., Barabasi, A.L.: Functional and topological characterization of protein interaction networks. Proteomics 4(4), 928–942 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rohit Singh
    • 1
  • Jinbo Xu
    • 2
  • Bonnie Berger
    • 1
  1. 1.Computer Science and AI Lab., Massachusetts Institute of Technology 
  2. 2.Toyota Technological Institute, ChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations