Resource: STRING v8.1

After months of hard work from the entire STRING team – thanks everyone -  I am pleased to be able to say that STRING v8.1 has now been put into production. Here is a screen shot of the start page:

This is a minor release of STRING, which means that the imported databases of microarray expression data, protein interactions, genetic interactions, and pathways as well as text-mining evidence have all been updated. We have also fixed a bug that affected the minority of bacteria that have multiple chromosomes.

Another notable feature of STRING v8.1 is the new interactive network viewer that is implemented in Adobe Flash:

For further details please see the post on the official STRING/STITCH blog.

Cite this post

Commentary: On large protein complexes and the essentiality of hubs

In 2001, Jeong and coworkers published a paper in Nature in which they showed that the central proteins in interaction networks, that is the proteins with the highest connectivity, are enriched for essential proteins. This publication has been highly influential as evidenced by the numerous subsequent publications on the importance of “hub” proteins. Several hypothesis have been published that try to explain why hubs are essential, for example that certain protein interactions are essential and that a protein with many interactions is thus more likely to be involved in at least one essential interaction (He and Zhang, 2006).

Yesterday, Zotenko and coworkers published a paper in PLoS Computational Biology in which they take a closer look at the cause of this phenomenon:

Why Do Hubs in the Yeast Protein Interaction Network Tend To Be Essential: Reexamining the Connection between the Network Topology and Essentiality.

The centrality-lethality rule, which notes that high-degree nodes in a protein interaction network tend to correspond to proteins that are essential, suggests that the topological prominence of a protein in a protein interaction network may be a good predictor of its biological importance. Even though the correlation between degree and essentiality was confirmed by many independent studies, the reason for this correlation remains illusive. Several hypotheses about putative connections between essentiality of hubs and the topology of protein-protein interaction networks have been proposed, but as we demonstrate, these explanations are not supported by the properties of protein interaction networks. To identify the main topological determinant of essentiality and to provide a biological explanation for the connection between the network topology and essentiality, we performed a rigorous analysis of six variants of the genomewide protein interaction network for Saccharomyces cerevisiae obtained using different techniques. We demonstrated that the majority of hubs are essential due to their involvement in Essential Complex Biological Modules, a group of densely connected proteins with shared biological function that are enriched in essential proteins. Moreover, we rejected two previously proposed explanations for the centrality-lethality rule, one relating the essentiality of hubs to their role in the overall network connectivity and another relying on the recently published essential protein interactions model.

What Zotenko et al. show is, in other words, that essential hubs tend to be highly connected with each other and hence form large “Essential Complex Biological Modules”. Table 7 in their paper lists the Gene Ontology terms associated with these modules; among the recurring themes are “rRNA metabolic process”, “mRNA metabolic process”, “RNA splicing”, “ribosome biogenesis and assembly”, and “proteolysis”. These Gene Ontology terms obviously correspond to well known protein complexes, namely the RNA polymerases, the spliceosome, the ribosome, and the proteoasome. The analysis of Zotenko et al. thus suggests that the much debated correlation between centrality and essentiality is simply a consequence of the fact that many of the large protein complexes in a eukaryotic cell are essential, which is hardly surprising considering that they have been conserved through more than two billion years of evolution (Brocks et al., 1999).

Edit: For more views on the results of Zotenko et al. see the discussion on FriendFeed.

Cite this post

Live: Networks, noise and survival in stress

Gabor Balazsi has just finished a very interesting presentation on the interplay between molecular networks, gene expression noise, and evolutionary selection – here is the opening slide:

In the first part of his talk he gave a nice introduction to global network topology and network motifs – this should be nothing new to people familiar with the work of the Barabasi and Alon labs. He also explained the “Commander, Intermediate, Executor” model for hierarchical regulatory networks, which I had personally not heard about before, and the concept of “origons”, which seems quite use for understanding the response of large signaling networks to environmental cues.

The second part of his talk was about stochastic noise in gene expression. Genetically identical cells in a culture may express the same protein at different levels; this is a result of random noise influencing transcription, mRNA degradation, translation, and protein degradation. This is simply a consequence of low copy numbers giving rise to stochastic, as opposed to deterministic, behavior.

Finally, he talked about how noise at the level of gene expression can influence the survival of species in a changing environment. This part of his talk was kicked off with the funniest slide of his presentation:

I guess it should be seen as a lesson on how not to do. He made some very good points about how noise plays hardly any role in multicellular organisms that reproduce sexually. By contrast, stochastic variation within clonal bacterial cultures provides much higher chance of survival when faced with sudden stress such treatment with anti-bacterial drugs. I would have liked to hear more about this, but unfortunately there was not much time left for this part of the presentation due to technical problems with the projectors. It looks like Guy Shinar picked the safe strategy for his presentation.

All in all, I found it to be a really inspiring talk. I have uploaded his slides in case if you want to take a look at it.