Abstract
Protein-protein interactions play a key role in many biological systems. High-throughput methods can directly detect the set of interacting proteins in yeast, but the results are often incomplete and exhibit high false-positive and false-negative rates. Recently, many different research groups independently suggested using supervised learning methods to integrate direct and indirect biological data sources for the protein interaction prediction task. However, the data sources, approaches, and implementations varied. Furthermore, the protein interaction prediction task itself can be subdivided into prediction of (1) physical interaction, (2) co-complex relationship, and (3) pathway co-membership. To investigate systematically the utility of different data sources and the way the data is encoded as features for predicting each of these types of protein interactions, we assembled a large set of biological features and varied their encoding for use in each of the three prediction tasks. Six different classifiers were used to assess the accuracy in predicting interactions, Random Forest (RF), RF similarity-based k-Nearest-Neighbor, Naïve Bayes, Decision Tree, Logistic Regression, and Support Vector Machine. For all classifiers, the three prediction tasks had different success rates, and co-complex prediction appears to be an easier task than the other two. Independently of prediction task, however, the RF classifier consistently ranked as one of the top two classifiers for all combinations of feature sets. Therefore, we used this classifier to study the importance of different biological datasets. First, we used the splitting function of the RF tree structure, the Gini index, to estimate feature importance. Second, we determined classification accuracy when only the top-ranking features were used as an input in the classifier. We find that the importance of different features depends on the specific prediction task and the way they are encoded. Strikingly, gene expression is consistently the most important feature for all three prediction tasks, while the protein interactions identified using the yeast-2-hybrid system were not among the top-ranking features under any condition.
MeSH Terms
Computational Biology/classification,methods
Databases, Protein/classification
Forecasting
Protein Interaction Mapping/classification,methods
Authors & Affiliations
3 authors, click to expand affiliations / ORCID
Qi Yanjun
School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213, USA.
Bar-Joseph Ziv
Klein-Seetharaman Judith
References (26)
26 references, click to expand
-
Computational methods of analysis of protein-protein interactions.
Curr Opin Struct Biol. 2003 Jun;13(3):377-82
PMID: 12831890
-
How reliable are experimental protein-protein interaction data?
J Mol Biol. 2003 Apr 11;327(5):919-23
PMID: 12662919
-
A Bayesian networks approach for predicting protein-protein interactions from genomic data.
Science. 2003 Oct 17;302(5644):449-53
PMID: 14564010
-
Computational discovery of gene modules and regulatory networks.
Nat Biotechnol. 2003 Nov;21(11):1337-42
PMID: 14555958
-
MIPS: analysis and annotation of proteins from whole genomes.
Nucleic Acids Res. 2004 Jan 1;32(Database issue):D41-4
PMID: 14681354
-
Saccharomyces Genome Database (SGD) provides tools to identify and analyze sequences from Saccharomyces cerevisiae and related sequences from other organisms.
Nucleic Acids Res. 2004 Jan 1;32(Database issue):D311-4
PMID: 14681421
-
Gaining confidence in high-throughput protein interaction networks.
Nat Biotechnol. 2004 Jan;22(1):78-85
PMID: 14704708
-
Global mapping of the yeast genetic interaction network.
Science. 2004 Feb 6;303(5659):808-13
PMID: 14764870
-
A statistical framework for combining and interpreting proteomic datasets.
Bioinformatics. 2004 Mar 22;20(5):689-700
PMID: 15033876
-
Predicting co-complexed protein pairs using genomic and proteomic data integration.
BMC Bioinformatics. 2004 Apr 16;5:38
PMID: 15090078
-
Protein network inference from multiple genomic data: a supervised approach.
Bioinformatics. 2004 Aug 4;20 Suppl 1:i363-70
PMID: 15262821
-
Transcriptional regulatory code of a eukaryotic genome.
Nature. 2004 Sep 2;431(7004):99-104
PMID: 15343339
-
Information assessment on predicting protein-protein interactions.
BMC Bioinformatics. 2004 Oct 18;5:154
PMID: 15491499
-
A probabilistic functional network of yeast genes.
Science. 2004 Nov 26;306(5701):1555-8
PMID: 15567862
-
Random forest similarity for protein-protein interaction prediction from multiple sources.
Pac Symp Biocomput. 2005;:531-42
PMID: 15759657
-
KEGG: kyoto encyclopedia of genes and genomes.
Nucleic Acids Res. 2000 Jan 1;28(1):27-30
PMID: 10592173
-
A comprehensive analysis of protein-protein interactions in Saccharomyces cerevisiae.
Nature. 2000 Feb 10;403(6770):623-7
PMID: 10688190
-
Gene ontology: tool for the unification of biology. The Gene Ontology Consortium.
Nat Genet. 2000 May;25(1):25-9
PMID: 10802651
-
A comprehensive two-hybrid analysis to explore the yeast protein interactome.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2001 Apr 10;98(8):4569-74
PMID: 11283351
-
DIP, the Database of Interacting Proteins: a research tool for studying cellular networks of protein interactions.
Nucleic Acids Res. 2002 Jan 1;30(1):303-5
PMID: 11752321
-
Functional organization of the yeast proteome by systematic analysis of protein complexes.
Nature. 2002 Jan 10;415(6868):141-7
PMID: 11805826
-
Systematic identification of protein complexes in Saccharomyces cerevisiae by mass spectrometry.
Nature. 2002 Jan 10;415(6868):180-3
PMID: 11805837
-
Comparative assessment of large-scale data sets of protein-protein interactions.
Nature. 2002 May 23;417(6887):399-403
PMID: 12000970
-
Analyzing yeast protein-protein interaction data obtained from different sources.
Nat Biotechnol. 2002 Oct;20(10):991-7
PMID: 12355115
-
Inferring domain-domain interactions from protein-protein interactions.
Genome Res. 2002 Oct;12(10):1540-8
PMID: 12368246
-
Global analysis of protein expression in yeast.
Nature. 2003 Oct 16;425(6959):737-41
PMID: 14562106