|
|
PLoS ONE. 2007; 2(11): e1207. Published online 2007 November 21. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0001207. | PMCID: PMC2065901 |
Copyright Jin et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Hubs with Network Motifs Organize Modularity Dynamically in the Protein-Protein Interaction Network of Yeast Guangxu Jin,1,2 Shihua Zhang,1,2 Xiang-Sun Zhang,1* and Luonan Chen3,4,5,6* 1Academy of Mathematics and Systems Science, Chinese Academy of Science, Beijing, China 2Graduate University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China 3Institute of Systems Biology, Shanghai University, Shanghai, China 4Department of Electrical Engineering and Electronics, Osaka Sangyo University, Osaka, Japan 5Exploratory Research for Advanced Technology (ERATO) Aihara Complexity Modelling Project, Japan Science and Technology Corporation (JST), Tokyo, Japan 6Institute of Industrial Science, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan Nick Monk, Academic Editor University of Nottingham, United Kingdom Received April 26, 2007; Accepted October 30, 2007. Background It has been recognized that modular organization pervades biological complexity. Based on network analysis, ‘party hubs’ and ‘date hubs’ were proposed to understand the basic principle of module organization of biomolecular networks. However, recent study on hubs has suggested that there is no clear evidence for coexistence of ‘party hubs’ and ‘date hubs’. Thus, an open question has been raised as to whether or not ‘party hubs’ and ‘date hubs’ truly exist in yeast interactome. Methodology In contrast to previous studies focusing on the partners of a hub or the individual proteins around the hub, our work aims to study the network motifs of a hub or interactions among individual proteins including the hub and its neighbors. Depending on the relationship between a hub's network motifs and protein complexes, we define two new types of hubs, ‘motif party hubs’ and ‘motif date hubs’, which have the same characteristics as the original ‘party hubs’ and ‘date hubs’ respectively. The network motifs of these two types of hubs display significantly different features in spatial distribution (or cellular localizations), co-expression in microarray data, controlling topological structure of network, and organizing modularity. Conclusion By virtue of network motifs, we basically solved the open question about ‘party hubs’ and ‘date hubs’ which was raised by previous studies. Specifically, at the level of network motifs instead of individual proteins, we found two types of hubs, motif party hubs (mPHs) and motif date hubs (mDHs), whose network motifs display distinct characteristics on biological functions. In addition, in this paper we studied network motifs from a different viewpoint. That is, we show that a network motif should not be merely considered as an interaction pattern but be considered as an essential function unit in organizing modules of networks. Many types of molecular networks display scale-free topologies which are characterized by the power-law degree distribution [1]– [5]. In spite of some negative remarks [6]– [9] on the studies of network structures, a small fraction of proteins generally interacting with many partners, i.e. so-called hubs, have attracted great interests [10]– [15] from the communities of both engineering and biology. To identify whether hubs vary their biological roles with the timing and location of the interactions, Han et al. proposed two types of hubs, i.e. ‘party hubs’ and ‘date hubs’, based on whether or not the hubs are co-expressed with their partners by using yeast microarray data [10]. The two distinct types of hubs not only display diverse spatial distribution for their partners but also organize the modules in different manners, where a module is referred as a group of physically or functionally linked molecules that work together to achieve a relatively distinct function [10], [16]. It should be noticed that the result of Han et al. on ‘party hub’ and ‘date hub’ was drawn from a filtered yeast interactome data (FYI). Recently, Batada et al. derived different results, in contrast to those of Han et al., based on another filtered yeast interactome data ( HCfyi) manually curated from online publications [11] (see Materials and Methods). Due to the topological difference between FYI and HCfyi, Batada et al. found that there is no evidence for coexistence of party hubs and date hubs, and the results about ‘party hubs’ and ‘date hubs’ are totally not correct. Thus, the most striking question raised by them is whether or not the ‘party hubs’ and ‘date hubs’ truly exist in the networks. In this paper, we aim to solve the contradiction between the two previous works. In virtue of network motifs, we define two new types of hubs in HCfyi, i.e. ‘motif party hub’ and ‘motif date hub’, which have the same characteristics as ‘party hub’ and ‘date hub’ respectively. Network motifs are the subgraphs that occur significantly more frequently in original network than random ones [17]– [22]. They have been revealed as the functional building blocks of biology networks [17], [18] and the spandrels of cellular complexity [23]. Similar to a previous research work on the role of network motifs in information processing [24], we focus on their important roles in acting as functional units in organizing modules. Moreover, in contrast to the previous studies on hubs, our work emphasizes on interactions of hubs and network motifs instead of individual proteins around hubs. Specifically, we divide hubs into ‘motif party hubs’ (mPHs) and ‘motif date hubs’ (mDHs) based on the relationship between a hub's network motifs and protein complexes. In this paper, we demonstrate that the network motifs of an mPH (i.e. network motifs take the mPH as one of their nodes) are more likely to stay inside a protein complex with their mPH, control the local topological structure, locate in the same cellular localizations as the mPH, and co-express in microarray data. On the other hand, we reveal that the network motifs of an mDH tend to spread into different complexes, and act as the connectors among signal pathways, control the global topological structure, locate in different cellular localizations, and express differently in microarray data. Motif party hub (mPH) and motif date hub (mDH) About 20% proteins, i.e. 197 proteins, in HCfyi were defined as hubs whose partners are not less than 12. There are 196 motif hubs with at least one network motif and only one hub without any network motif (see Methods and Materials and Table S1). Based on the relationship between a hub's network motifs and protein complexes, we divided the 196 motif hubs into 98 mPHs and 98 mDHs (see Methods and Materials). The quantitative criterion Complexratio-same was defined to identify the relationship between a hub's network motifs and protein complexes. A relatively high Complexratio-same implies that more network motifs of a hub (a network motif takes a hub as one of its nodes, and a hub may be used by multiple network motifs) belong to the same protein complex as the hub, e.g. the four proteins or three proteins in such a network motif are more likely to be in just one protein complex. Otherwise, it indicates that less network motifs of the hub belong to the same protein complex, e.g. the four proteins or three proteins in such a network motif are more likely to be parts of different protein complexes. From the definition of mPHs and mDHs, we can see that the network motifs of an mPH more likely stay together in the same protein complex as the mPH while those of an mDH spread outside the protein complex of the mDH. In this paper, mPHs and mDHs defined by network motifs and protein complexes were introduced to study hubs at the level of network motifs instead of individual proteins (or nodes), so as to solve the open question whether or not HCfyi contains date hubs and party hubs. Due to the topological distinction between HCfyi and FYI ( HCfyi looks like stratus while FYI looks like altocumulus [11]), 103 hubs were found in the overlap between 199 hubs in FYI and 197 hubs in HCfyi. We found that more than 60% of ‘party hubs’ and ‘date hubs’ defined by Han et al. have been correctly divided into mPHs and mDHs respectively by our method among the overlapped 103 hubs between FYI (proposed by Han et al.) and HCfyi (proposed by Batada et al.) (see ). Furthermore, we can see that the motifs of mPHs and mDHs have the same characteristics as the partners of party hubs and date hubs respectively in cellular localization or spatial distribution, controlling topological structure, linking with signal pathways and co-expression in microarray data. Therefore, we call them as motif ‘party’ and motif ‘date’ hubs due to the facts that they are similar to ‘party’ and ‘date’ hubs mentioned in Han et al. [10]. Distinct cellular localizations for mPHs and mDHs One of main distinctions between party hubs and date hubs is their different spatial distributions (partners of date hubs are significantly more diverse in spatial distribution than those of party hubs) [10]. In virtue of another criterion, i.e. Localizationratio-same (see Materials and Methods), we found that Localizationratio-sames of mPHs are relatively high and those of mDHs are relatively low. The criterion Localizationratio-same shows localization relationship of network motifs of a hub. A higher one implies that three proteins or four proteins in each of network motifs of a hub are likely to locate in the same cellular localization as the hub. On the other hand, a lower one shows that the proteins in each of network motifs of a hub more likely locate in different cellular localizations. In , mPHs have significantly higher Localizationratio-sames than mDHs (mean of mPHs: 0.7926; mean of mDHs: 0.4826; P<10 −11 for Mann-Whitney U test.). Thus we can say that the network motifs of mPHs and mDHs have significantly different spatial distributions. In our analysis, ‘nucleus’ and ‘cytoplasm’ were not excluded from the cellular localization data (see Materials and Methods). In this respect, our method is also different from one of Han et al. who excluded the ‘nucleus’ and ‘cytoplasm’ from the cellular localization data. Moreover, we found that mPHs and mDHs have a significant difference in these two cellular localizations. Most mPHs (about 65%) are located in the nucleus. However, most mDHs (about 63%) are localized in subcellular compartments other than the nucleus (see ). It is clear that there is a statistically significant localization difference between mPHs and mDHs ( x2 = 15.69, P≤0.001 for chi-square test). Therefore, mPHs prefer to ‘nucleus’ of a cell while mDHs are likely outside ‘nucleus’. The cellular localization distribution of hubs and their network motifs implies that, mPHs with their network motifs tend to locate in nucleus while mDHs are more likely to locate outside nucleus, and their network motifs have a scattered spatial distribution. mPHs and mDHs control network architecture differently In early work, it has been shown that the HCfyi network is tolerant to hubs' deletion, which means that the key components of the HCfyi network still remain after removal of date hubs or party hubs, or even all the hubs [11]. One of direct reasons is that the protein-protein interactions in the network are too dense to be broken into fragments by only removing ‘date hubs’ or ‘party hubs’. Therefore, hubs rarely have effect on the structure of the network in such a case. However, hubs may affect the network topological structure in a different manner. In this paper, a new approach for breaking down both the hubs and their motifs from the network was introduced based on mPHs and mDHs. In , it appears that deleting the mPHs and their motifs has little influence on the main network structure, whereas deleting the mDHs and their motifs makes the network broken into many fragments in . In other words, mDHs and their motifs clearly have a global effect on the network structure. In addition, we also evaluated the p-values for the cases by removing mPHs with their motifs and by removing mDHs with their motifs in ( both of them are less than 0.001). Moreover, in , about 50% of proteins are still connected in the largest component after removal of mPHs () and their network motifs while only less than 10% of proteins are connected in the largest component after removal of mDHs and their network motifs (). In Table 1, we can see that the largest component after deletion of mPHs and their network motifs () contains 533 protein-protein interactions while it contains only 47 protein-protein interactions after deletion of mDHs and their network motifs (). Clearly, those results demonstrate that the mPHs mainly control the local structure by their motifs while the mDHs control the global structure by their motifs. | Table 1Sizes and Numbers of the network components after removal of mPHs and mDHs respectively |
mPHs and mDHs link with signal pathways in different ways The definitions of mPHs and mDHs imply that most network motifs of an mPH stay together with the mPH in a protein complex while the network motifs of an mDH are not restricted in a protein complex. Furthermore, we built up a network composed of hubs and signal pathways shown in , by which we found that mDHs are more likely to be the connectors among signal pathways. If at least one of a hub's network motifs takes one or more proteins in some signal pathway as its node, there is one link between the hub and the signal pathway in the network as shown in . It is not difficult to see that mDHs link with more signal pathways than mPHs (see Table 2, x2= 5.02, P<0.05 for Chi-square test). In addition, each mDH links with several signal pathways, i.e. the degrees of about 90% (86/98) of mDHs are all larger than 2, and their mean value is 4.3 (see Figure S1). As a result, mPHs and their network motifs mostly stay inside protein complexes, whereas mDHs and their motifs act as connectors among signal pathways. | Table 2Linking with signal pathways by network motifs |
Network motifs of mPHs are more co-expressed than those of mDHs Another of main distinctions between party hubs and date hubs is whether or not the hubs are co-expressed (or are expressed simultaneously) with their partners [10]. Han et al. took the average PCC (or APCC) of the hubs as a measure to distinguish party hubs (with relatively high APCC) from date hubs (with relatively low APCC), where PCC is a Pearson correlation coefficient between a hub and one of its partners in microarray data. In this paper, however, we take another criterion to measure whether or not the network motifs of hubs are co-expressed. Specifically, we considered the standard deviation of average motif correlations (SAMC) of a hub (see Materials and Methods), in which average motif correlation (AMC) of a network motif is the average value of Pearson correlation coefficients between two proteins connected in the network motif. If SAMC is relatively low, the network motifs of the hub are more likely expressed at the same time (or say, the expression difference among the hub's network motifs is small). Moreover, besides the difference between APCC and SAMC in considering individual partners and network motifs respectively, it seems that SAMC is not equivalent to APCC while another one, i.e. mean of average motif correlations (MAMC), is similar to APCC. Such facts were actually confirmed by the numerical experiments. That is, by numerical experiments, we found that the MAMCs of mPHs have no significant difference from those of mDHs but the SAMCs of mPHs are significantly lower than those of mDHs (see Table 3). Therefore, in this paper, if there is no significantly difference in the average expressions of network motifs (MAMCs) between mPHs and mDHs, it is more confident for us to conclude that the network motifs of mPHs are more likely to be co-expressed than those of mDHs depending on the significant SAMC difference between mPHs and mDHs. | Table 3Statistic significance for the differences of SAMCs between mDHs and mPHs in Microarray data |
At the level of network motifs instead of individual proteins, we found two types of hubs, motif party hubs (mPHs) and motif date hubs (mDHs), whose network motifs display distinct characteristics in organizing modules, cellular localizations, controlling network architecture, and co-expression in microarray data. More importantly, such a result answered the open question whether or not HCfyi contains ‘date hubs’ and ‘party hubs’, i.e. the contradiction on ‘date hubs’ and ‘party hubs’ between works of Han et al. [10] and Batada et al. [11], at the level of network motifs. Moreover, more results on degree and cluster coefficient differences (see Figure S2) and GO function difference between mPHs and mDHs (see Figure S3) were also found (see Text S1). Although our results support the observation on ‘party hub’ and ‘date hub’ conducted by Han et al. [10], our analysis methods are totally different from theirs. That is, their study focus remains at the level of individual proteins (or nodes), however, our work is at the level of network motifs. The main procedures of the proposed method based on network motifs can be summarized as follows: - First, dividing hubs by considering how many network motifs stay together with their hubs in protein complexes;
- Second, constructing spatial distribution of hubs by considering how many hubs' network motifs locate in the same cellular localizations as the hubs;
- Third, controlling the network architecture of hubs by considering the important roles of network motifs in breaking down network topological structure;
- Fourth, organizing the modules by considering the roles of network motifs in linking hubs and signal pathways;
- Lastly, analyzing co-expression in microarray data of hubs by considering the difference among network motifs' expressions.
Why were network motifs adopted to distinguish ‘party hubs’ from ‘date hubs’ in HCfyi in this work? One of main reasons is that we surprisingly found that all network motifs in HCfyi occupy about 74% proteins and involve 85% interactions of HCfyi (see ). In other words, from the viewpoint of network motifs, the main structure of HCfyi is composed of network motifs rather than individual proteins. Thus, it is natural that we adopt network motifs as main elements while studying hubs. Another reason is that the appropriate size of the chosen network motifs, i.e. 3 or 4, determines their important role in characterizing both small size elements, i.e. molecules, at the ‘low level’ of a network, and large size elements, i.e. modules such as protein complexes [25]– [28] and signal pathways [29], [30], at the ‘high level’ of a network. In our analysis, we did study the network from different levels [31]. For example, in our analysis, mPHs' network motifs control a local topological structures and stay together inside protein complexes, which represents a ‘lower level’ of the network. On the other hand, mDHs' network motifs control the global topological structure and act as the connectors among signal pathways, which represent a ‘high level’ of the network. At either ‘low level’ or ‘high level’ of the network, the network motif is a suitable and essential building block or functional unit to characterize both relatively small elements, i.e. molecules, at a ‘low level’, and relatively large ones, i.e. modules, at a ‘high level’. We studied the biological network of yeast from the viewpoint of network motifs in the paper, in particular stressing on their biological roles in biological networks rather than the topological structures of network motifs. Both theoretical and numerical analysis show that network motifs should not be merely considered as a connection pattern from topological structures but be considered as essential function units in organizing the modules from biological processes [24]. Protein interaction data The FYI dataset of 2491 interactions among 1375 proteins was obtained from Han et al. [10]. The HCfyi dataset of 3976 interactions among 1291 proteins was obtained from Batada et al. [11]. The methodologies to construct FYI and HCfyi are similar. They were both based on an intersection method in which only the interactions observed at least twice are retained from various datasets. Datasets of the FYI were derived from HTP [25], [26], [32]– [34], APT [34]– [36], in silico-predicted dataset [37]– [39] and MIPS [40]. Datasets of the HCfyi were derived from all extent protein interaction datasets, which include all LC interaction data (BioGRID [41], BIND [36], DIP [42], MINT [43], and MIPS [40]), and all HTP interaction data [25]– [28], [34], [35], [42]. Especially, the LC data were manually curated from over 31,793 abstracts and online publications [41], and there is no interaction derived from standard large-scale experiments in both FYI and HCfyi. Protein complex, signal pathway and cellular localization data The protein complex data were derived from MIPS [40] in September of 2006 and the signal pathway data were derived from KEGG [44] in November of 2006. Cellular localization data were derived from Huh et al. [45]. Gene expression data The 6 microarray datasets [10], [11], [46] (Stress response [47], cell cycle [48], pheromone treatment [49], unfolded protein response [50], sporulation [51] and compendium [46]) were normalized with Z score normalization [52] (i.e. the expression measurement for each gene was adjusted to have a mean of 0 and a standard deviation of 1) using the original log 2 fold change values. Compendium gene expression data are an expression-profiling compendium of 315 data points for most yeast genes across other five different experimental conditions. The PCC (Pearson correlation coefficient) of motifs were calculated for the five conditions and the combined set of all conditions (compendium). Hub We selected about top 20% proteins with relatively more partners, i.e. 197 proteins, in the HCfyi network, which are defined as hubs. All of their partners are not less than 12. There are 103 hubs in the overlap of hubs of HCfyi and FYI (199 hubs). Network Motifs detected by mfinder1.2 In consideration that the protein-protein interaction networks are undirected, the network motifs appearing in these undirected networks are undoubtedly undirected. For three-node substructures, only one network motif, i.e. triangle or ID: 238, has been found, whose Z-score is 317.43. For four-node substructures, one network motif, i.e. square or ID: 13260, has been found and been chosen as the representative four-node network motif in our study, whose Z-score is 12.90. Indeed, for four-node network motifs, others have also been found. The reason why we chose the square four-node network motif is that the other four-node network motifs can be composed of the triangle and the square. The network motifs were found by mfinder1.2 [17], [18]. Division of hubs into mPHs and mDHs We propose a quantitative criterion to divide hubs into mPHs and mDHs in this paper. According to the quantitative criterion Complexratio-same, we can have a partition of hubs based on the relationship between a hub's network motifs and protein complexes. If a protein H is a hub in FYI, and M is a set of the hub's network motifs that are composed of M1, M2,…, M|M| (for every network motif Mi, i![[set membership]](/corehtml/pmc/pmcents/x2208.gif) {1,2,…,| M|}, HMi must be satisfied) , then we have where set Msame is composed of those network motifs whose three proteins or four proteins all belong to just the same protein complex. In other words, for the protein Pj in some network motif Mk, j{1,2,…,| Mk|}, the protein complex set of Pj is Complexj that is composed of those protein complexes containing the protein Pj. If  , then MkMsame. |•| is the number of elements in some set. Thus, 98 hubs with relatively high Complexratio-same (larger than or equal to 0.5) are called mPHs, and 98 hubs with relatively low Complexratio-same (less than 0.5) are called mDHs (see Table S1). A measure for cellular localizations According to the quantitative criterion Localizationratio-same proposed in this paper, we can measure the spatial distribution of a hub's network motifs. If a protein H is a hub in FYI, and M is a set of the hub's network motifs that are composed of M1, M2,…, M|M|, then we have where set Msame is composed of those network motifs whose three proteins or four proteins all locate in just the same cellular localization. In other words, for the protein Pj in some network motif Mk, j{1,2,…,| Mk|}, the cellular localization set of Pj is Localizationj that is composed of those cellular localizations of the protein Pj. If  , then MkMsame. |•| is the number of elements in some set. Standard deviation of Average Motif Correlation (SAMC) To analyze co-expression or study the difference in gene expression of a hub's network motifs, we define Standard deviation of Average Motif Correlation (SAMC). Average Motif Correlation (AMC) for one of a hub's network motifs is to measure the average gene expression level for the network motif. If a protein H is a hub in FYI, and M is a set of the hub's network motifs that are composed of M1, M2,…, M|M|. For each network motif Mi ( i{1,2,…,| M|}) that contains three proteins or four proteins as mentioned in the section about network motifs, then we have where | Mi| is the number of interactions in network motif Mi, i.e. 3 or 4, and Pj, Pk are any two proteins in Mi. PCC( Pj, Pk) is the Pearson correlation coefficient between proteins Pj and Pk. I is a function defined as equal to 1 if Pj, Pk are linked in the network motif Mi, and equal to 0 if Pj, Pk are not linked in the network motif Mi. Thus, SAMC is the Standard deviation of all AMCs for all network motifs of a hub. Mean of Average Motif Correlation (MAMC) Mean of Average Motif Correlation (MAMC) is the Mean of all AMCs for all network motifs of a hub. Text S1 Additional results on mPHs and mDHs. (0.11 MB PDF) Table S1 mPHs and mDHs. (0.02 MB PDF) Figure S1 The degrees of mDHs in . (0.08 MB TIF) Figure S2 The degree and cluster coefficient differences between mPHs and mDHs. (0.07 MB TIF) Figure S3 Function_ratio-sames of mDHs is significantly different from those of mPHs (0.04 MB TIF) We are very grateful to Jing-Dong J. Han and Nizar N Batada for helpful suggestions on collecting Microarray data, and Nizar N Batada for providing us the data of HCfyi network. 1. Jeong H, Mason SP, Barabasi AL, Oltvai ZN. Lethality and centrality in protein networks. Nature. 2001;411:41–42. [PubMed] 2. Albert R, Jeong H, Barabasi AL. Error and attack tolerance of complex networks. Nature. 2000;406:378–382. [PubMed] 3. Barabasi AL, Albert R. Emergence of scaling in random networks. Science. 1999;286:509. [PubMed] 4. Barabasi AL, Oltvai ZN. Network biology: understanding the cell's functional organization. Nat Rev Genet. 2004;5(2):101–13. [PubMed] 5. Barabasi AL. Cambridge Mass: Perseus Pub; 2002. Linked: the new science of networks. 6. Przulj N, Wigle DA, Jurisica I. Functional topology in a network of protein interactions. Bioinformatics. 2004;12;20(3):340–8. [PubMed] 7. Stumpf MP, Wiuf C, May RM. Subnets of scale-free networks are not scale-free: sampling properties of networks. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005;22;102(12):4221–4. [PubMed] 8. Thomas A, Cannings R, Monk NA, Cannings C. On the structure of protein-protein interaction networks. Biochem Soc Trans. 2003;31(Pt 6):1491–6. [PubMed] 9. Han JD, Dupuy D, Bertin N, Cusick ME, Vidal M. Effect of sampling on topology predictions of protein-protein interaction networks. Nat Biotechnol. 2005;23(7):839–44. [PubMed] 10. Han JD, Bertin N, Hao T, Goldberg DS, Berriz GF, et al. Evidence for dynamically organized modularity in the yeast protein-protein interaction network. Nature. 2004;430:88–93. [PubMed] 11. Batada NN, Reguly T, Breitkreutz A, Boucher L, Breitkreutz BJ, et al. Stratus not altocumulus: A new view of the yeast protein interaction network. PLoS Biol. 2006;4(10):e317. [PubMed] 12. Ekman D, Light S, Bjorklund AK, Elofsson A. What properties characterize the hub proteins of the protein-protein interaction network of Saccharomyces cerevisiae? Genome Biol. 2006;7:R45. [PubMed] 13. He X, Zhang J. Why do hubs tend to be essential in protein networks? PLoS Genet. 2006;2(6):0868–0834. 14. Batada NN, Hurst LD, Tyers M. Evolutionary and physiological importance of hub proteins. PLoS Comput Biol. 2006;2(7):e88. [PubMed] 15. Maslov S, Sneppen K. Specificity and stability in topology of protein networks. Science. 2002;296:910–913. [PubMed] 16. Hartwell LH, Hopfield JJ, Leibler S, Murray AW. From molecular to modular cell biology. Nature. 1999;402:C47–C52. [PubMed] 17. Milo R, Shen-Orr S, Itzkovitz S, Kashtan N, Chklovskii D, et al. Network Motifs: Simple Building Blocks of Complex Networks. Science. 2002;298:824–827. [PubMed] 18. Milo R, Itzkovitz S, Kashtan N, Levitt R, Shen-Orr S, et al. Superfamilies of designed and evolved networks. Science. 2004;303:1538–42. [PubMed] 19. Shen-Orr S, Milo R, Mangan S, Alon U. Network motifs in the transcriptional regulation network of Escherichia coli. Nat Genet. 2002;31:64–68. [PubMed] 20. Mangan S, Itzkovitz S, Zaslaver A, Alon U. The Incoherent Feed-forward Loop Accelerates the Response-time of the gal System of Escherichia coli. JMB. 2006;356:1073–81. 21. Mangan S, Zaslaver A, Alon U. The Coherent Feedforward Loop Serves as a Sign-sensitive Delay Element in Transcription Networks. JMB 334/. 2003;2:197–204. 22. Li C, Chen L, Aihara K. A systems biology perspective on signal processing in genetic motifs. IEEE Signal Proc Mag, 2007;24:136–147. 23. Sole RV, Valverde S. Are network motifs the spandrels of cellular complexity? Trends Ecol Evol. 2006;21:419–422. [PubMed] 24. Balazsi G, Barabasi AL, Oltvai ZN. Topological units of environmental signal processing in the transcriptional regulatory network of Escherichia coli. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005;31;102(22):7841–6. [PubMed] 25. Ito T, Chiba T, Ozawa R, Yoshida M, Hattori M, et al. A comprehensive two-hybrid analysis to explore the yeast protein interactome. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2001;98:4569–4574. [PubMed] 26. Uetz P, Giot L, Cagney G, Mansfield TA, Judson RS, et al. A comprehensive analysis of protein-protein interactions in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Nature. 2000;403:623–627. [PubMed] 27. Gavin AC, Aloy P, Grandi P, Krause R, Boesche M, et al. Proteome survey reveals modularity of the yeast cell machinery. Nature. 2006;440:631–637. [PubMed] 28. Krogan NJ, Cagney G, Yu H, Zhong G, Guo X, et al. Global landscape of protein complexes in the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Nature. 2006;440:637–644. [PubMed] 29. Gustin MC, Albertyn J, Alexander M, Davenport K. MAP kinase pathways in the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 1998;62(4):1264–300. [PubMed] 30. Herskowitz I. MAP kinase pathways in yeast: for mating and more. Cell. 1995;80(2):187–97. [PubMed] 31. Ideker T, Lauffenburger D. Building with a scaffold: emerging strategies for high- to low-level cellular modeling. Trends Biotechnol. 2003;21:255–262. [PubMed] 32. Fromont-Racine M, Mayes AE, Brunet-Simon A, Rain JC, Colley A, et al. Genome-wide protein interaction screens reveal functional networks involving Sm-like proteins. Yeast. 2000;17:95–110. [PubMed] 33. Fromont-Racine M, Rain JC, Legrain P. Toward a functional analysis of the yeast genome through exhaustive two-hybrid screens. Nature Genet. 1997;16:277–282. [PubMed] 34. Ho Y, Gruhler A, Heilbut A, Bader GD, Moore L, et al. Systematic identification of protein complexes in Saccharomyces cerevisiae by mass spectrometry. Nature. 2002;415:180–183. [PubMed] 35. Gavin AC, Bosche M, Krause R, Grandi P, Marzioch M, et al. Functional organization of the yeast proteome by systematic analysis of protein complexes. Nature. 2002;415:141–147. [PubMed] 36. Bader GD, Betel D, Hogue CW. BIND: the Biomolecular Interaction Network Database. Nucleic Acids Res. 2003;31:248–250. [PubMed] 37. von Mering C, Krause R, Snel B, Cornell M, Oliver SG, et al. Comparative assessment of large-scale data sets of proteinCprotein interactions. Nature. 2002;417:399–403. [PubMed] 38. Marcotte EM, Pellegrini M, Thompson MJ, Yeates TO, Eisenberg D. A combined algorithm for genome-wide prediction of protein function. Nature. 1999;402:83–86. [PubMed] 39. Dandekar T, Snel B, Huynen M, Bork P. Conservation of gene order: a fingerprint of proteins that physically interact. Trends Biochem Sci. 1998;23:324–328. [PubMed] 40. Mewes HW, Frishman D, Guldener U, Mannhaupt G, Mayer K, et al. MIPS: a database for genomes and protein sequences. Nucleic Acids Res. 2002;30:31–34. [PubMed] 41. Reguly T, Breitkreutz A, Boucher L, Breitkreutz BJ, Hon GC, et al. Comprehensive curation and analysis of global interaction networks in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. J Biol. 2006;5:11. [PubMed] 42. Xenarios I, Rice DW, Salwinski L, Baron MK, Marcotte EM, et al. DIP: The database of interacting proteins. Nucleic Acids Res. 2000;28:289–291. [PubMed] 43. Zanzoni A, Montecchi-Palazzi L, Quondam M, Ausiello G, Helmer-Citterich M, et al. MINT: a Molecular INTeraction database. FEBS Lett. 2002;20;513(1):135–40. [PubMed] 44. Kanehisa M, Goto S, Hattori M, Aoki-Kinoshita KF, Itoh M, et al. From genomics to chemical genomics: new devel-opments in KEGG. Nucleic Acids Res. 2006;34:D354–7. [PubMed] 45. Huh WK, Falvo JV, Gerke LC, Carroll AS, Howson RW, et al. Global analysis of protein localization in budding yeast. Nature. 2003;425:686–691. [PubMed] 46. Kemmeren P, van Berkum NL, Vilo J, Bijma T, Donders R, et al. Protein interaction verification and functional annotation by integrated analysis of genome-scale data. Mol Cell. 2002;9:1133–1143. [PubMed] 47. Gasch AP, Spellman PT, Kao CM, Carmel-Harel O, Eisen MB, et al. Genomic expression programs in the response of yeast cells to environmental changes. Mol Biol Evol. 2000;11:4241–4257. 48. Spellman PT, Sherlock G, Zhang MQ, Iyer VR, Anders K, et al. Comprehensive identification of cell cycle-regulated genes of the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae by microarray hybridization. Mol Biol Evol. 1998;9:3273–3297. 49. Roberts CJ, Nelson B, Marton MJ, Stoughton R, Meyer MR, et al. Signaling and circuitry of multiple MAPK pathways revealed by a matrix of global gene expression profiles. Science. 2000;287:873–880. [PubMed] 50. Chu S, DeRisi J, Eisen M, Mulholland J, Botstein D, et al. The transcriptional program of sporulation in budding yeast. Science. 1998;282:699–705. [PubMed] 51. Travers KJ, Patil CK, Wodicka L, Lockhart DJ, Weissman JS, et al. Functional and genomic analyses reveal an essential coordination between the unfolded protein response and ERassociated degradation. Cell. 2000;101:249–258. [PubMed] 52. Quackenbush J. Microarray data normalization and transformation. Nat Genet. 2002;32(Suppl):496–501. [PubMed] 53. Enright AJ, Ouzounis CA. BioLayout-an automatic graph layout algorithm for similarity visualization. Bioinformatics. 2001;17(9):853–854. [PubMed] 54. Bernard R. Boston Mass: Duxbury Press; 1986. Fundamentals of Biostatistic.
|
This article has been 
