Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Analysis
  • Published:

Systematic interpretation of genetic interactions using protein networks

Nature Biotechnology volume 23, pages 561–566 (2005)Cite this article

Abstract

Genetic interaction analysis,in which two mutations have a combined effect not exhibited by either mutation alone, is a powerful and widespread tool for establishing functional linkages between genes. In the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae, ongoing screens have generated >4,800 such genetic interaction data. We demonstrate that by combining these data with information on protein-protein, prote in-DNA or metabolic networks, it is possible to uncover physical mechanisms behind many of the observed genetic effects. Using a probabilistic model, we found that 1,922 genetic interactions are significantly associated with either between- or within-pathway explanations encoded in the physical networks, covering ∼40% of known genetic interactions. These models predict new functions for 343 proteins and suggest that between-pathway explanations are better than within-pathway explanations at interpreting genetic interactions identified in systematic screens. This study provides a road map for how genetic and physical interactions can be integrated to reveal pathway organization and function.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: Method overview.
Figure 2: Between-pathway explanations for genetic interactions.
Figure 3: Within-pathway explanations for genetic interactions.
Figure 4: Genetic interaction prediction schemes.
Figure 5: Success rate of genetic interaction prediction versus the stringency of prediction.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Guarente, L. Synthetic enhancement in gene interaction: a genetic tool come of age. Trends Genet. 9, 362–366 (1993).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Avery, L. & Wasserman, S. Ordering gene function: the interpretation of epistasis in regulatory hierarchies. Trends Genet. 8, 312–316 (1992).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Thomas, J.H. Thinking about genetic redundancy. Trends Genet. 9, 395–399 (1993).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Hartman, J.L., Garvik, B. & Hartwell, L. Principles for the buffering of genetic variation. Science 291, 1001–1004 (2001).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Sham, P. Shifting paradigms in gene-mapping methodology for complex traits. Pharmacogenomics 2, 195–202 (2001).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Dolma, S., Lessnick, S.L., Hahn, W.C. & Stockwell, B.R. Identification of genotype-selective antitumor agents using synthetic lethal chemical screening in engineered human tumor cells. Cancer Cell 3, 285–296 (2003).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Forsburg, S.L. The art and design of genetic screens: yeast. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2, 659–668 (2001).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Tong, A.H. et al. Systematic genetic analysis with ordered arrays of yeast deletion mutants. Science 294, 2364–2368 (2001).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Ooi, S.L., Shoemaker, D.D. & Boeke, J.D. DNA helicase gene interaction network defined using synthetic lethality analyzed by microarray. Nat. Genet. 35, 277–286 (2003).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Tong, A.H. et al. Global mapping of the yeast genetic interaction network. Science 303, 808–813 (2004).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Li, S. et al. A map of the interactome network of the metazoan C. elegans. Science 303, 540–543 (2004).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Rain, J.C. et al. The protein-protein interaction map of Helicobacter pylori. Nature 409, 211–215 (2001).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Uetz, P. et al. A comprehensive analysis of protein-protein interactions in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Nature 403, 623–627 (2000).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Giot, L. et al. A protein interaction map of Drosophila melanogaster. Science 302, 1727–1736 (2003).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Ito, T. et al. Toward a protein-protein interaction map of the budding yeast: a comprehensive system to examine two-hybrid interactions in all possible combinations between the yeast proteins. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 97, 1143–1147 (2000).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Ho, Y. et al. Systematic identification of protein complexes in Saccharomyces cerevisiae by mass spectrometry. Nature 415, 180–183 (2002).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Gavin, A-C., Bösche, M., Krause, R., Grandi, P. & Marzioch, M. Functional organization of the yeast proteome by systematic analysis of protein complexes. Nature 415, 141–147 (2002).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Lee, T.I. et al. Transcriptional regulatory networks in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Science 298, 799–804 (2002).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Harbison, C.T. et al. Transcriptional regulatory code of a eukaryotic genome. Nature 431, 99–104 (2004).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Ozier, O., Amin, N. & Ideker, T. Global architecture of genetic interactions on the protein network. Nat. Biotechnol. 21, 490–491 (2003).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Tucker, C.L. & Fields, S. Lethal combinations. Nat. Genet. 35, 204–205 (2003).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Winzeler, E.A. et al. Functional characterization of the S. cerevisiae genome by gene deletion and parallel analysis. Science 285, 901–906 (1999).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Mewes, H.W. et al. MIPS: a database for genomes and protein sequences. Nucleic Acids Res. 30, 31–34 (2002).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Xenarios, I. et al. DIP, the Database of Interacting Proteins: a research tool for studying cellular networks of protein interactions. Nucleic Acids Res. 30, 303–305 (2002).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Kanehisa, M., Goto, S., Kawashima, S. & Nakaya, A. The KEGG databases at GenomeNet. Nucleic Acids Res. 30, 42–46 (2002).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Shannon, P. et al. Cytoscape: a software environment for integrated models of biomolecular interaction networks. Genome Res. 13, 2498–2504 (2003).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Gene Ontology Consortium. Creating the gene ontology resource: design and implementation. Genome Res. 11, 1425–1433 (2001).

  28. Zar, J.H. Biostatistical Analysis, edn. 3 (Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 1996).

    Google Scholar 

  29. Kendall, S.M., Stuart, A. & Ord, J.K. Kendall's Advanced Theory of Statistics, edn. 5 (Oxford University Press, NY, 1987).

    Google Scholar 

  30. Milo, R. et al. Network motifs: simple building blocks of complex networks. Science 298, 824–827 (2002).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Geissler, S., Siegers, K. & Schiebel, E. A novel protein complex promoting formation of functional alpha- and gamma-tubulin. EMBO J. 17, 952–966 (1998).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Kahana, J.A. et al. The yeast dynactin complex is involved in partitioning the mitotic spindle between mother and daughter cells during anaphase B. Mol. Biol. Cell 9, 1741–1756 (1998).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Pidoux, A.L. & Allshire, R.C. Centromeres: getting a grip of chromosomes. Curr. Opin. Cell Biol. 12, 308–319 (2000).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Pfeffer, S.R. Membrane transport: retromer to the rescue. Curr. Biol. 11, R109–R111 (2001).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Siniossoglou, S., Peak-Chew, S.Y. & Pelham, H.R. Ric1p and Rgp1p form a complex that catalyses nucleotide exchange on Ypt6p. EMBO J. 19, 4885–4894 (2000).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Hwang, W.W. et al. A conserved RING finger protein required for histone H2B monoubiquitination and cell size control. Mol. Cell 11, 261–266 (2003).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Sharan, R., Ideker, T., Kelley, B.P., Shamir, R. & Karp, R.M. Identification of protein complexes by comparative analysis of yeast and bacterial protein interaction data. Proceedings of the Eighth Annual International Conference on Research in Computational Molecular Biology–RECOMB, 282–289 (ACM Press, New York, 2004)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Jonathan Wang, Owen Ozier and Gopal Ramachandran for preliminary investigations and Vineet Bafna, Ben Raphael and Vikas Bansal for insightful commentary. Craig Mak, Silpa Suthram and Taylor Sittler provided helpful reviews of the text. Funding was provided by the National Institute of General Medical Sciences (GM070743-01) and the National Science Foundation (NSF 0425926).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Program in Bioinformatics, University of California, San Diego, 9500 Gilman Dr., San Diego, 92093-0412, California, USA

    Ryan Kelley & Trey Ideker

  2. Department of Bioengineering, University of California, San Diego, 9500 Gilman Dr., San Diego, 92093-0412, California, USA

    Ryan Kelley & Trey Ideker

Authors
  1. Ryan Kelley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Trey Ideker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Trey Ideker.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Fig. 1

Direct overlaps between genetic and physical interactions, while statistically significant, are limited in systematic data and probably biased. (PDF 192 kb)

Supplementary Fig. 2

Influence of beta on result set. (PDF 179 kb)

Supplementary Fig. 3

Estimated prediction accuracy for naive and pathway-based within-pathway genetic predictions. (PDF 188 kb)

Supplementary Table 1

Compounds excluded from the physical interaction network (not used to connect two proteins in a metabolic interaction). (PDF 19 kb)

Supplementary Table 2

The members of pathways identified in various searches. (PDF 68 kb)

Supplementary Table 3

The log-odds score associated with each network model identified in various searches. (PDF 62 kb)

Supplementary Table 4

Results from reduced searches. (PDF 28 kb)

Supplementary Table 5

Functional enrichment. (PDF 23 kb)

Supplementary Table 6

GO annotation predictions made with pathways obtained from various searches. (PDF 112 kb)

Supplementary Table 7

Basis of annotation predictions. (PDF 21 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kelley, R., Ideker, T. Systematic interpretation of genetic interactions using protein networks. Nat Biotechnol 23, 561–566 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt1096

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt1096

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing