Flags and Lollipops

Tuesday, February 14, 2006

REPRINT: Detecting linear motifs in interaction networks

(this is an older post, reprinted so that it'll appear in today's feed: I'll explain why in my next new post)

There's an interesting paper in November's PLoS Biology by Neduva et al., about finding short linear motifs using protein interaction networks.
Many aspects of cell signalling, trafficking, and targeting are governed by interactions between globular protein domains and short peptide segments. These domains often bind multiple peptides that share a common sequence pattern, or “linear motif” (e.g., SH3 binding to PxxP). Many domains are known, though comparatively few linear motifs have been discovered. Their short length (three to eight residues), and the fact that they often reside in disordered regions in proteins makes them difficult to detect through sequence comparison or experiment.
The idea is that for each protein in an interaction network you take its interactors, remove the parts of each that are unlikely to contain linear motifs (like globular domains, coiled coils and signal peptides) and then search the remaining peptide sequences for overrepresented motifs, compared to a control set of 15,000 proteins selected at random from SWISSPROT. The motifs are then ranked according to their p-value, which represents how unlikely the motif is to be so frequently observed in so few proteins.

Three of the previously uncharacterized linear motifs they found in drosophila and yeast were tested in the lab, confirming two of them (doesn't seem like a set big enough to draw any conclusions from, but this is essentially an in-silico paper, after all).

The authors also used the same approach on sets of interacting proteins from the Eukaryotic Linear Motif database and found that often the curated linear motif from ELM was the same as the top ranking motif in their results.

While there isn't anything particularly exciting about the methodology here it's interesting to see protein interaction networks being used for something other than protein classification or hand waving (about network architecture, evolutionary pressures, etc.)

I'm also surprised that nobody has done anything similar up until now. I remember a paper about globular domains being used to predict new protein interactors, but nothing the other way round...

Comments and trackbacks Feel free to post your comments Blogger The Bioinformatics Blog Anonymous Neil Anonymous Anonymous Anonymous Anonymous Anonymous Anonymous Anonymous Anonymous . This post has trackbacks.

Trackbacks:

6 Comments:

At February 15, 2006 9:27 AM, Blogger The Bioinformatics Blog said...

This type of stuff is defintely interesting and ive seen a few papers along these lines (ive seen others using structural motifs from interactions in the PDB, from Aloy and Russell) but what alwyas irks me is that they focus on SH3 domains for analysis. I have no doubt that this type of thing works for SH3 domains. The major question is, does this work for all domains? what are features of domains this doesnt work on and vice versa?

btw nice blog.

 
At February 16, 2006 3:43 AM, Anonymous Neil said...

Interesting. I'll be looking at this when I move to my new job in a couple of weeks - it's a computational biology research post looking at ways to predict protein interaction using structural and sequence data, particularly focused on kinases. This sounds relevant.

 
At February 20, 2006 10:36 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To pick up on the last comment, ie. being suprprised that others haven't done this previously. Speaking as one of the developers of this technique, their were primarily two main stumbling blocks:

1. The lack a usable benchmark which which to test this appraoch. Until we had access to the linear motif instance data from ELM, it wasn't possible to do much testing at all.

2. The lack of a sufficient pool of protein interactions. When we started this work in 2002, we only had a few thousand yeast interactions. Given the fact that only about 1 in 20 sets of proteins around a hub would return a motif, we really couldn't find much. The publication of interaction datasets from Fly and Worm changed everything.

I should also add that it took us something like 18 months to get this paper published. We nearly had success in Science & Cell, but were killed at the last minute. So hats off to PLoS Biology - it sailed in.

There is a real lack of understanding in the community about these kinds of things. Hopefully things will change now that more publications in this area are appearing.

I'm pleased, in any case, to have captured the attention of the blog.

Best wishes to all,

Rob Russell, Group Leader, EMBL, Heidelberg (russell@embl.de)

 
At July 26, 2006 6:47 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thank you!
[url=http://zivuedjr.com/xwkm/hxwm.html]My homepage[/url] | [url=http://xnmjkbca.com/uzze/hkll.html]Cool site[/url]

 
At July 26, 2006 6:48 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nice site!
My homepage | Please visit

 
At July 26, 2006 6:48 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Great work!
http://zivuedjr.com/xwkm/hxwm.html | http://ttrvkkax.com/bhcu/eqrx.html

 

Post a Comment

<< Home


See all posts from: July 2005 August 2005 September 2005 October 2005 November 2005 December 2005 January 2006 February 2006 March 2006 April 2006 May 2006 June 2006 July 2006 September 2006 October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 January 2007 February 2007 March 2007 April 2007 May 2007 June 2007 July 2007 August 2007 October 2007 November 2007 December 2007 January 2008 February 2008 March 2008 April 2008 May 2008