Even if we know that two families of homologous proteins interact, we do not necessarily know, which specific proteins interact inside each species. The reason is that most families contain paralogs, i.e., more than one homologous sequence per species. We have developed a tool to predict interacting paralogs between the two protein families, which is based on the idea of inter-protein coevolution: our algorithm matches those members of the two protein families, which belong to the same species and collectively maximize the detectable coevolutionary signal. It is applicable even in cases, where simpler methods based, e.g., on genomic co-localization of genes coding for interacting proteins or orthology-based methods fail. In this method paper, we present an efficient implementation of this idea based on freely available software.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Springer Nature is developing a new tool to find and evaluate Protocols. Learn more
A.P. and M.W. acknowledge funding by the EU H2020 research and innovation program MSCA-RISE-2016 under grant agreement No. 734439 INFERNET.
Shoemaker BA, Panchenko AR (2007) Deciphering protein−protein interactions. Part I. Experimental techniques and databases. PLoS Comput Biol 3(3):e42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rao VS, Srinivas K, Sujini GN, Kumar GN (2014) Protein-protein interaction detection: methods and analysis. Int J Proteomics 2014:147648CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dandekar T, Snel B, Huynen M, Bork P (1998) Conservation of gene order: a fingerprint of proteins that physically interact. Trends Biochem Sci 23(9):324–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galperin MY, Koonin EV (2000) Who’s your neighbor? New computational approaches for functional genomics. Nat Biotechnol 18(6):609–613CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marcotte CJV, Marcotte EM (2002) Predicting functional linkages from gene fusions with confidence. Appl Bioinforma 1(2):93–100Google Scholar
Marcotte EM et al (1999) Detecting protein function and protein-protein interactions from genome sequences. Science 285(5428):751–753CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pellegrini M, Marcotte EM, Thompson MJ, Eisenberg D, Yeates TO (1999) Assigning protein functions by comparative genome analysis: protein phylogenetic profiles. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 96(8):4285–4288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pazos F, Valencia A (2001) Similarity of phylogenetic trees as indicator of protein−protein interaction. Protein Eng 14(9):609–614CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Juan D, Pazos F, Valencia A (2008) High-confidence prediction of global interactomes based on genome-wide coevolutionary networks. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 105(3):934–939CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gueudré T, Baldassi C, Zamparo M, Weigt M, Pagnani A (2016) Simultaneous identification of specifically interacting paralogs and interprotein contacts by direct coupling analysis. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 113(43):12186–12191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szurmant H, Weigt M (2018) Inter-residue, inter-protein and inter-family coevolution: bridging the scales. Curr Opin Struct Biol 50:26–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cocco S, Feinauer C, Figliuzzi M, Monasson R, Weigt M (2018) Inverse statistical physics of protein sequences: a key issues review. Rep Prog Phys 81(3):032601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bitbol AF, Dwyer RS, Colwell LJ, Wingreen NS (2016) Inferring interaction partners from protein sequences. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 113(43):12180–12185CrossRefGoogle Scholar