Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2007 Apr 27;3(4):e43.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.0030043.

Deciphering protein-protein interactions. Part II. Computational methods to predict protein and domain interaction partners

Benjamin A Shoemaker  1 , Anna R Panchenko
Affiliations
Review

Deciphering protein-protein interactions. Part II. Computational methods to predict protein and domain interaction partners

Benjamin A Shoemaker et al. PLoS Comput Biol. .

Abstract

Recent advances in high-throughput experimental methods for the identification of protein interactions have resulted in a large amount of diverse data that are somewhat incomplete and contradictory. As valuable as they are, such experimental approaches studying protein interactomes have certain limitations that can be complemented by the computational methods for predicting protein interactions. In this review we describe different approaches to predict protein interaction partners as well as highlight recent achievements in the prediction of specific domains mediating protein-protein interactions. We discuss the applicability of computational methods to different types of prediction problems and point out limitations common to all of them.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests. The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1. Different Methods of Protein Interaction Prediction
(A) Gene cluster and gene neighborhood methods, different boxes showing different genes. (B) Phylogenetic profile method, showing the presence/absence of four proteins in three genomes. (C) Rosetta Stone method. (D) Sequence co-evolution method looking for the similarity between two phylogenetic trees/distance matrices (E) Classification methods shown with the example of RFD method, where five different features/domains are used and each interacting protein pair is encoded as a string of 0, 1, and 2. The decision trees are constructed based on the training set of interacting protein pairs and decisions are made if proteins under the question interact or not (“yes” for interacting, “no” for non-interacting).
Figure 2
Figure 2. Strategies to Predict Domain Interactions from Protein Interactions
(A) Shows that due to the abundance of domains x and y in protein interaction pairs shown on the same line, the domains x and y are predicted to interact. (B) Illustrates the same dataset revealing that the actual domain interactions (dotted lines) do not include domains x and y. It shows that accounting for other domains in a protein pair in addition to x and y can result in alternative predictions. (C) Considers the case of several paralogous protein pairs (from Family_1 and Family_2) containing the same two domains. In this case each paralog from one domain family (represented by a shade of red for Family_1) interacts with only one specific paralog (represented by a shade of blue for Family_2) of the other domain family. While there are examples of specific interacting domains (shown by dotted line), there are even more cases where they do not interact (shown with an “X”), meaning that the larger abundance of non-interacting examples can mask the few, specific interacting cases.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Shoemaker BA, Panchenko AR. Deciphering protein–protein interactions. Part I. Experimental techniques and databases. PLoS Comp Biol. 2007;3:e42 - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bowers PM, Pellegrini M, Thompson MJ, Fierro J, Yeates TO, et al. Prolinks: A database of protein functional linkages derived from coevolution. Genome Biol. 2004;5:R35. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Ermolaeva MD, White O, Salzberg SL. Prediction of operons in microbial genomes. Nucleic Acids Res. 2001;29:1216–1221. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Moreno-Hagelsieb G, Collado-Vides J. A powerful non-homology method for the prediction of operons in prokaryotes. Bioinformatics. 2002;18(Supplement 1):S329–S336. - PubMed
    1. Strong M, Mallick P, Pellegrini M, Thompson MJ, Eisenberg D. Inference of protein function and protein linkages in Mycobacterium tuberculosis based on prokaryotic genome organization: A combined computational approach. Genome Biol. 2003;4:R59. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types