Literature DB >> 12096128

Describing biological protein interactions in terms of protein states and state transitions: the LiveDIP database.

Xiaoqun Joyce Duan1, Ioannis Xenarios, David Eisenberg.   

Abstract

Biological protein-protein interactions differ from the more general class of physical interactions; in a biological interaction, both proteins must be in their proper states (e.g. covalently modified state, conformational state, cellular location state, etc.). Also in every biological interaction, one or both interacting molecules undergo a transition to a new state. This regulation of protein states through protein-protein interactions underlies many dynamic biological processes inside cells. Therefore, understanding biological interactions requires information on protein states. Toward this goal, DIP (the Database of Interacting Proteins) has been expanded to LiveDIP, which describes protein interactions by protein states and state transitions. This additional level of characterization permits a more complete picture of the protein-protein interaction networks and is crucial to an integrated understanding of genome-scale biology. The search tools provided by LiveDIP, Pathfinder, and Batch Search allow users to assemble biological pathways from all the protein-protein interactions collated from the scientific literature in LiveDIP. Tools have also been developed to integrate the protein-protein interaction networks of LiveDIP with large scale genomic data such as microarray data. An example of these tools applied to analyzing the pheromone response pathway in yeast suggests that the pathway functions in the context of a complex protein-protein interaction network. Seven of the eleven proteins involved in signal transduction are under negative or positive regulation of up to five other proteins through biological protein-protein interactions. During pheromone response, the mRNA expression levels of these signaling proteins exhibit different time course profiles. There is no simple correlation between changes in transcription levels and the signal intensity. This points to the importance of proteomic studies to understand how cells modulate and integrate signals. Integrating large scale, yeast two-hybrid data with mRNA expression data suggests biological interactions that may participate in pheromone response. These examples illustrate how LiveDIP provides data and tools for biological pathway discovery and pathway analysis.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12096128     DOI: 10.1074/mcp.m100026-mcp200

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Mol Cell Proteomics        ISSN: 1535-9476            Impact factor:   5.911


  11 in total

1.  The Database of Interacting Proteins: 2004 update.

Authors:  Lukasz Salwinski; Christopher S Miller; Adam J Smith; Frank K Pettit; James U Bowie; David Eisenberg
Journal:  Nucleic Acids Res       Date:  2004-01-01       Impact factor: 16.971

2.  PROTEOME-3D: an interactive bioinformatics tool for large-scale data exploration and knowledge discovery.

Authors:  Deborah H Lundgren; Jimmy Eng; Michael E Wright; David K Han
Journal:  Mol Cell Proteomics       Date:  2003-09-07       Impact factor: 5.911

3.  The nonconserved wrapping of conserved protein folds reveals a trend toward increasing connectivity in proteomic networks.

Authors:  Ariel Fernández; Ridgway Scott; R Stephen Berry
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2004-02-20       Impact factor: 11.205

4.  Estimating the size of the human interactome.

Authors:  Michael P H Stumpf; Thomas Thorne; Eric de Silva; Ronald Stewart; Hyeong Jun An; Michael Lappe; Carsten Wiuf
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2008-05-12       Impact factor: 11.205

5.  An evaluation of human protein-protein interaction data in the public domain.

Authors:  Suresh Mathivanan; Balamurugan Periaswamy; T K B Gandhi; Kumaran Kandasamy; Shubha Suresh; Riaz Mohmood; Y L Ramachandra; Akhilesh Pandey
Journal:  BMC Bioinformatics       Date:  2006-12-18       Impact factor: 3.169

6.  The Biomolecular Interaction Network Database and related tools 2005 update.

Authors:  C Alfarano; C E Andrade; K Anthony; N Bahroos; M Bajec; K Bantoft; D Betel; B Bobechko; K Boutilier; E Burgess; K Buzadzija; R Cavero; C D'Abreo; I Donaldson; D Dorairajoo; M J Dumontier; M R Dumontier; V Earles; R Farrall; H Feldman; E Garderman; Y Gong; R Gonzaga; V Grytsan; E Gryz; V Gu; E Haldorsen; A Halupa; R Haw; A Hrvojic; L Hurrell; R Isserlin; F Jack; F Juma; A Khan; T Kon; S Konopinsky; V Le; E Lee; S Ling; M Magidin; J Moniakis; J Montojo; S Moore; B Muskat; I Ng; J P Paraiso; B Parker; G Pintilie; R Pirone; J J Salama; S Sgro; T Shan; Y Shu; J Siew; D Skinner; K Snyder; R Stasiuk; D Strumpf; B Tuekam; S Tao; Z Wang; M White; R Willis; C Wolting; S Wong; A Wrong; C Xin; R Yao; B Yates; S Zhang; K Zheng; T Pawson; B F F Ouellette; C W V Hogue
Journal:  Nucleic Acids Res       Date:  2005-01-01       Impact factor: 16.971

7.  Developing a protein-interactions ontology.

Authors:  Esther Ratsch; Jörg Schultz; Jasmin Saric; Philipp Cimiano Lavin; Ulrike Wittig; Uwe Reyle; Isabel Rojas
Journal:  Comp Funct Genomics       Date:  2003

8.  Computational Prediction of Protein-Protein Interaction Networks: Algo-rithms and Resources.

Authors:  Javad Zahiri; Joseph Hannon Bozorgmehr; Ali Masoudi-Nejad
Journal:  Curr Genomics       Date:  2013-09       Impact factor: 2.236

9.  Large-scale assessment of the effect of popularity on the reliability of research.

Authors:  Thomas Pfeiffer; Robert Hoffmann
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2009-06-24       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 10.  Deciphering protein-protein interactions. Part I. Experimental techniques and databases.

Authors:  Benjamin A Shoemaker; Anna R Panchenko
Journal:  PLoS Comput Biol       Date:  2007-03-30       Impact factor: 4.475

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.