Specificity in Protein Interactions and Its Relationship with Sequence Diversity and Coevolution

Overview

Journal Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A

Specialty Science

Date 2007 May 1

PMID 17468399

Citations 61

Authors

Luke Hakes

Simon C Lovell

Stephen G Oliver

David L Robertson

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Studies of interacting proteins have found correlated evolution of the sequences of binding partners, apparently as a result of compensating mutations to maintain specificity (i.e., molecular coevolution). Here, we analyze the coevolution of interacting proteins in yeast and demonstrate correlated evolution of binding partners in eukaryotes. Detailed investigation of this apparent coevolution, focusing on the proteins' surface and binding interface, surprisingly leads to no improvement in the correlation. We conclude that true coevolution, as characterized by compensatory mutations between binding partners, is unlikely to be chiefly responsible for the apparent correlated evolution. We postulate that the correlation between sequence alignments is simply due to interacting proteins being subject to similar constraints on their evolutionary rate. Because gene expression has a strong influence on evolutionary rate, and interacting proteins will tend to have similar levels of expression, we investigated this particular constraint. We found that the absolute expression level outperformed correlated evolution for predicting interacting protein partners. A correlation between sequence alignments could also be identified not only between pairs of proteins that physically interact but also between those that are merely functionally related (i.e., within the same protein complex). This indicates that the observed correlated evolution of interacting proteins is due to similar constraints on evolutionary rate and not coevolution.

Citing Articles

Special Issue: "Molecular Dynamics Simulations and Structural Analysis of Protein Domains".

de Brevern A Int J Mol Sci. 2024; 25(19).

PMID: 39409122 PMC: 11477144. DOI: 10.3390/ijms251910793.

Comparative Genomic Analysis of the Pattern of Evolution of Male and Female Reproductive Proteins in Seed Beetles.

Papachristos K, Sayadi A, Arnqvist G Genome Biol Evol. 2024; 16(7).

PMID: 38941482 PMC: 11251426. DOI: 10.1093/gbe/evae143.

Spastin and alsin protein interactome analyses begin to reveal key canonical pathways and suggest novel druggable targets.

Helmold B, Ahrens A, Fitzgerald Z, Ozdinler P Neural Regen Res. 2024; 20(3):725-739.

PMID: 38886938 PMC: 11433914. DOI: 10.4103/NRR.NRR-D-23-02068.

Evolutionary rate covariation is a reliable predictor of co-functional interactions but not necessarily physical interactions.

Little J, Chikina M, Clark N Elife. 2024; 12.

PMID: 38415754 PMC: 10942632. DOI: 10.7554/eLife.93333.

An Update on Protein Kinases as Therapeutic Targets-Part II: Peptides as Allosteric Protein Kinase C Modulators Targeting Protein-Protein Interactions.

Zerihun M, Rubin S, Silnitsky S, Qvit N Int J Mol Sci. 2023; 24(24).

PMID: 38139336 PMC: 10743673. DOI: 10.3390/ijms242417504.

References

von Mering C, Krause R, Snel B, Cornell M, Oliver S, Fields S . Comparative assessment of large-scale data sets of protein-protein interactions. Nature. 2002; 417(6887):399-403. DOI: 10.1038/nature750. View

Henrick K, Thornton J . PQS: a protein quaternary structure file server. Trends Biochem Sci. 1998; 23(9):358-61. DOI: 10.1016/s0968-0004(98)01253-5. View

Byrne K, Wolfe K . The Yeast Gene Order Browser: combining curated homology and syntenic context reveals gene fate in polyploid species. Genome Res. 2005; 15(10):1456-61. PMC: 1240090. DOI: 10.1101/gr.3672305. View

Pazos F, Valencia A . Similarity of phylogenetic trees as indicator of protein-protein interaction. Protein Eng. 2001; 14(9):609-14. DOI: 10.1093/protein/14.9.609. View

Dietrich F, Voegeli S, Brachat S, Lerch A, Gates K, Steiner S . The Ashbya gossypii genome as a tool for mapping the ancient Saccharomyces cerevisiae genome. Science. 2004; 304(5668):304-7. DOI: 10.1126/science.1095781. View

Drummond D, Bloom J, Adami C, Wilke C, Arnold F . Why highly expressed proteins evolve slowly. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005; 102(40):14338-43. PMC: 1242296. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0504070102. View

Wolfe K, Shields D . Molecular evidence for an ancient duplication of the entire yeast genome. Nature. 1997; 387(6634):708-13. DOI: 10.1038/42711. View

Chen Y, Dokholyan N . The coordinated evolution of yeast proteins is constrained by functional modularity. Trends Genet. 2006; 22(8):416-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.tig.2006.06.008. View

Gavin A, Aloy P, Grandi P, Krause R, Boesche M, Marzioch M . Proteome survey reveals modularity of the yeast cell machinery. Nature. 2006; 440(7084):631-6. DOI: 10.1038/nature04532. View

10.

Kim W, Bolser D, Park J . Large-scale co-evolution analysis of protein structural interlogues using the global protein structural interactome map (PSIMAP). Bioinformatics. 2004; 20(7):1138-50. DOI: 10.1093/bioinformatics/bth053. View

11.

Pazos F, Valencia A . In silico two-hybrid system for the selection of physically interacting protein pairs. Proteins. 2002; 47(2):219-27. DOI: 10.1002/prot.10074. View

12.

Mintseris J, Weng Z . Structure, function, and evolution of transient and obligate protein-protein interactions. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005; 102(31):10930-5. PMC: 1182425. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0502667102. View

13.

Sato T, Yamanishi Y, Kanehisa M, Toh H . The inference of protein-protein interactions by co-evolutionary analysis is improved by excluding the information about the phylogenetic relationships. Bioinformatics. 2005; 21(17):3482-9. DOI: 10.1093/bioinformatics/bti564. View

14.

Spirin V, Mirny L . Protein complexes and functional modules in molecular networks. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003; 100(21):12123-8. PMC: 218723. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2032324100. View

15.

Janin J, Miller S, Chothia C . Surface, subunit interfaces and interior of oligomeric proteins. J Mol Biol. 1988; 204(1):155-64. DOI: 10.1016/0022-2836(88)90606-7. View

16.

Agrafioti I, Swire J, Abbott J, Huntley D, Butcher S, Stumpf M . Comparative analysis of the Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Caenorhabditis elegans protein interaction networks. BMC Evol Biol. 2005; 5:23. PMC: 1079807. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2148-5-23. View

17.

Goh C, Bogan A, Joachimiak M, Walther D, Cohen F . Co-evolution of proteins with their interaction partners. J Mol Biol. 2000; 299(2):283-93. DOI: 10.1006/jmbi.2000.3732. View

18.

Yang Z, Nielsen R . Estimating synonymous and nonsynonymous substitution rates under realistic evolutionary models. Mol Biol Evol. 2000; 17(1):32-43. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a026236. View

19.

Stark C, Breitkreutz B, Reguly T, Boucher L, Breitkreutz A, Tyers M . BioGRID: a general repository for interaction datasets. Nucleic Acids Res. 2005; 34(Database issue):D535-9. PMC: 1347471. DOI: 10.1093/nar/gkj109. View

20.

Jones S, Thornton J . Protein-protein interactions: a review of protein dimer structures. Prog Biophys Mol Biol. 1995; 63(1):31-65. DOI: 10.1016/0079-6107(94)00008-w. View