Abstract
Changes in the biochemical wiring of oncogenic cells drives phenotypic transformations that directly affect disease outcome. Here we examine the dynamic structure of the human protein interaction network (interactome) to determine whether changes in the organization of the interactome can be used to predict patient outcome. An analysis of hub proteins identified intermodular hub proteins that are co-expressed with their interacting partners in a tissue-restricted manner and intramodular hub proteins that are co-expressed with their interacting partners in all or most tissues. Substantial differences in biochemical structure were observed between the two types of hubs. Signaling domains were found more often in intermodular hub proteins, which were also more frequently associated with oncogenesis. Analysis of two breast cancer patient cohorts revealed that altered modularity of the human interactome may be useful as an indicator of breast cancer prognosis.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 print issues and online access
$209.00 per year
only $17.42 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on SpringerLink
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Chuang, H.Y., Lee, E., Liu, Y.T., Lee, D. & Ideker, T. Network-based classification of breast cancer metastasis. Mol. Syst. Biol. 3, 140 (2007).
Brown, K.R. & Jurisica, I. Online predicted human interaction database. Bioinformatics 21, 2076–2082 (2005).
Su, A.I. et al. A gene atlas of the mouse and human protein-encoding transcriptomes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 101, 6062–6067 (2004).
Chatr-aryamontri, A. et al. MINT: the Molecular INTeraction database. Nucleic Acids Res. 35, D572–D574 (2007).
von Mering, C. et al. STRING 7–recent developments in the integration and prediction of protein interactions. Nucleic Acids Res. 35, D358–D362 (2007).
Fraser, H.B. Modularity and evolutionary constraint on proteins. Nat. Genet. 37, 351–352 (2005).
Han, J.D. et al. Evidence for dynamically organized modularity in the yeast protein-protein interaction network. Nature 430, 88–93 (2004).
Barabasi, A.L. & Oltvai, Z.N. Network biology: understanding the cell's functional organization. Nat. Rev. Genet. 5, 101–113 (2004).
de Lichtenberg, U., Jensen, L.J., Brunak, S. & Bork, P. Dynamic complex formation during the yeast cell cycle. Science 307, 724–727 (2005).
Tengowski, M.W., Feng, D., Sutovsky, M. & Sutovsky, P. Differential expression of genes encoding constitutive and inducible 20S proteasomal core subunits in the testis and epididymis of theophylline- or 1,3-dinitrobenzene-exposed rats. Biol. Reprod. 76, 149–163 (2007).
Thomas, M.K., Yao, K.M., Tenser, M.S., Wong, G.G. & Habener, J.F. Bridge-1, a novel PDZ-domain coactivator of E2A-mediated regulation of insulin gene transcription. Mol. Cell. Biol. 19, 8492–8504 (1999).
Ashburner, M. et al. Gene ontology: tool for the unification of biology. The Gene Ontology Consortium. Nat. Genet. 25, 25–29 (2000).
Yip, K.Y., Yu, H., Kim, P.M., Schultz, M. & Gerstein, M. The tYNA platform for comparative interactomics: a web tool for managing, comparing and mining multiple networks. Bioiformatics 22, 2968–2970 (2006).
Yu, H., Greenbaum, D., Xin Lu, H., Zhu, X. & Gerstein, M. Genomic analysis of essentiality within protein networks. Trends Genet. 20, 227–231 (2004).
Puntervoll, P. et al. ELM server: A new resource for investigating short functional sites in modular eukaryotic proteins. Nucleic Acids Res. 31, 3625–3630 (2003).
Letunic, I. et al. SMART 5: domains in the context of genomes and networks. Nucleic Acids Res. 34, D257–D260 (2006).
Karnoub, A.E. & Weinberg, R.A. Ras oncogenes: split personalities. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 9, 517–531 (2008).
McKusick, V.A. Mendelian inheritance in man and its online version, OMIM. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 80, 588–604 (2007).
Futreal, P.A. et al. A census of human cancer genes. Nat. Rev. Cancer 4, 177–183 (2004).
van de Vijver, M.J. et al. A gene-expression signature as a predictor of survival in breast cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 347, 1999–2009 (2002).
Roukos, D.H. Prognosis of breast cancer in carriers of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations. N. Engl. J. Med. 357, 1555–1556, author reply 1556.
Soderlund, K. et al. Intact Mre11/Rad50/Nbs1 complex predicts good response to radiotherapy in early breast cancer. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 68, 50–58 (2007).
Tusher, V.G., Tibshirani, R. & Chu, G. Significance analysis of microarrays applied to the ionizing radiation response. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 98, 5116–5121 (2001).
Chang, H.Y. et al. Gene expression signature of fibroblast serum response predicts human cancer progression: similarities between tumors and wounds. PLoS Biol. 2, E7 (2004).
Liu, R. et al. The prognostic role of a gene signature from tumorigenic breast-cancer cells. N. Engl. J. Med. 356, 217–226 (2007).
Sorlie, T. et al. Repeated observation of breast tumor subtypes in independent gene expression data sets. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 100, 8418–8423 (2003).
Easton, D.F. et al. Genome-wide association study identifies novel breast cancer susceptibility loci. Nature 447, 1087–1093 (2007).
Frey, B.J. & Dueck, D. Clustering by passing messages between data points. Science 315, 972–976 (2007).
Paik, S. et al. A multigene assay to predict recurrence of tamoxifen-treated, node-negative breast cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 351, 2817–2826 (2004).
Buyse, M. et al. Validation and clinical utility of a 70-gene prognostic signature for women with node-negative breast cancer. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 98, 1183–1192 (2006).
Haibe-Kains, B. et al. Comparison of prognostic gene expression signatures for breast cancer. BMC Genomics 9, 394 (2008).
Bertin, N. et al. Confirmation of organized modularity in the yeast interactome. PLoS Biol. e153 (2007).
von Mering, C. et al. Comparative assessment of large-scale data sets of protein-protein interactions. Nature 417, 399–403 (2002).
Shannon, P. et al. Cytoscape: a software environment for integrated models of biomolecular interaction networks. Genome Res. 13, 2498–2504 (2003).
Linding, R. et al. Systematic discovery of in vivo phosphorylation networks. Cell 129, 1415–1426 (2007).
Acknowledgements
We acknowledge Lars Juhl Jensen, EMBL-Heidelberg, for critical assessment of this manuscript. We would like to thank L. Attisano for critical review and helpful discussions. Work in J.L.W.'s lab was supported by funds from Genome Canada through the Ontario Genomics Institute and the Ontario chapter of the Canadian Breast Cancer Fund. D.W.-F. was supported by an Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada operating grant assigned to Q.M. J.L.W. is a CRC chair and an International Scholar of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute. I.W.T. is supported by a fellowship from the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
I.W.T. contributed to the development of the project, the execution of all experiments and the writing of the manuscript. R.L. contributed to experiments in Figure 2 and writing of the manuscript. D.W.-F. and Q.M. contributed to the development and implementation of the prognosis classification algorithm and the cross-validation strategies, as well as to the writing the manuscript. Y.L. contributed programming support for data in Figures 1, 2, 3, 4. C.P. & D.F. contributed to the semantic similarity experiment in Supplementary Figure 2b. S.B. contributed to the development of the statistical frameworks throughout the manuscript and writing the manuscript. T.P. contributed to writing of the manuscript. J.L.W. contributed to the development of the project and the writing of the manuscript.
Corresponding author
Supplementary information
Supplementary Text and Figures
Supplementary Figures 1–9 and Supplementary Methods (ZIP 16019 kb)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Taylor, I., Linding, R., Warde-Farley, D. et al. Dynamic modularity in protein interaction networks predicts breast cancer outcome. Nat Biotechnol 27, 199–204 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.1522
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.1522
This article is cited by
-
Robust, scalable, and informative clustering for diverse biological networks
Genome Biology (2023)
-
Computational systems biology in disease modeling and control, review and perspectives
npj Systems Biology and Applications (2022)
-
Analysis of multiple gene co-expression networks to discover interactions favoring CFTR biogenesis and ΔF508-CFTR rescue
BMC Medical Genomics (2021)
-
Are we there yet? A machine learning architecture to predict organotropic metastases
BMC Medical Genomics (2021)