Abstract

BackgroundDetermining the function of uncharacterized proteins is a major challenge in the post-genomic era due to the problem's complexity and scale. Identifying a protein's function contributes to an understanding of its role in the involved pathways, its suitability as a drug target, and its potential for protein modifications. Several graph-theoretic approaches predict unidentified functions of proteins by using the functional annotations of better-characterized proteins in protein-protein interaction networks. We systematically consider the use of literature co-occurrence data, introduce a new method for quantifying the reliability of co-occurrence and test how performance differs across species. We also quantify changes in performance as the prediction algorithms annotate with increased specificity.ResultsWe find that including information on the co-occurrence of proteins within an abstract greatly boosts performance in the Functional Flow graph-theoretic function prediction algorithm in yeast, fly and worm. This increase in performance is not simply due to the presence of additional edges since supplementing protein-protein interactions with co-occurrence data outperforms supplementing with a comparably-sized genetic interaction dataset. Through the combination of protein-protein interactions and co-occurrence data, the neighborhood around unknown proteins is quickly connected to well-characterized nodes which global prediction algorithms can exploit. Our method for quantifying co-occurrence reliability shows superior performance to the other methods, particularly at threshold values around 10% which yield the best trade off between coverage and accuracy. In contrast, the traditional way of asserting co-occurrence when at least one abstract mentions both proteins proves to be the worst method for generating co-occurrence data, introducing too many false positives. Annotating the functions with greater specificity is harder, but co-occurrence data still proves beneficial.ConclusionCo-occurrence data is a valuable supplemental source for graph-theoretic function prediction algorithms. A rapidly growing literature corpus ensures that co-occurrence data is a readily-available resource for nearly every studied organism, particularly those with small protein interaction databases. Though arguably biased toward known genes, co-occurrence data provides critical additional links to well-studied regions in the interaction network that graph-theoretic function prediction algorithms can exploit.

Highlights

  • Determining the function of uncharacterized proteins is a major challenge in the post-genomic era due to the problem's complexity and scale

  • Complementing the protein-protein interaction (PPI) data with co-occurrence data Using the most general definition of co-occurrence, whereby an interaction exists between two proteins mentioned at least twice together in the literature, co-occurrence data was a significant source of interactions for all organisms (Table 3)

  • Through the combination of protein-protein interactions and co-occurrence data, the neighborhood around unknown proteins is quickly connected to well-characterized nodes which global prediction algorithms can exploit

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Determining the function of uncharacterized proteins is a major challenge in the post-genomic era due to the problem's complexity and scale. Several graph-theoretic approaches predict unidentified functions of proteins by using the functional annotations of better-characterized proteins in protein-protein interaction networks. The putative characterization for unknown proteins has traditionally relied on sequence homology, for example as assessed by BLAST score. This approach is inadequate for proteomic-wide function identification as it has a failure rate of 20–40% in newly sequenced genomes [1]. New methods for proteomic-scale function prediction which do not rely on sequence homology draw from highthroughput data to make inferences, including several techniques that use protein-protein interaction graphs [1,3,4,5,6,7,8]. One obvious question becomes how useful is each of these sources to a graphtheoretic function prediction algorithm

Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.