BACKGROUND: Epistatic Miniarray Profiling(E-MAP) quantifies the net effect on growth rate of disrupting pairs of genes, often producing phenotypes that may be more (negative epistasis) or less (positive epistasis) severe than the phenotype predicted based on single gene disruptions. Epistatic interactions are important for understanding cell biology because they define relationships between individual genes, and between sets of genes involved in biochemical pathways and protein complexes. Each E-MAP screen quantifies the interactions between a logically selected subset of genes (e.g. genes whose products share a common function). Interactions that occur between genes involved in different cellular processes are not as frequently measured, yet these interactions are important for providing an overview of cellular organization. RESULTS: We introduce a method for combining overlapping E-MAP screens and inferring new interactions between them. We use this method to infer with high confidence 2,240 new strongly epistatic interactions and 34,469 weakly epistatic or neutral interactions. We show that accuracy of the predicted interactions approaches that of replicate experiments and that, like measured interactions, they are enriched for features such as shared biochemical pathways and knockout phenotypes. We constructed an expanded epistasis map for yeast cell protein complexes and show that our new interactions increase the evidence for previously proposed inter-complex connections, and predict many new links. We validated a number of these in the laboratory, including new interactions linking the SWR-C chromatin modifying complex and the nuclear transport apparatus. CONCLUSION: Overall, our data support a modular model of yeast cell protein network organization and show how prediction methods can considerably extend the information that can be extracted from overlapping E-MAP screens.
BACKGROUND: Epistatic Miniarray Profiling(E-MAP) quantifies the net effect on growth rate of disrupting pairs of genes, often producing phenotypes that may be more (negative epistasis) or less (positive epistasis) severe than the phenotype predicted based on single gene disruptions. Epistatic interactions are important for understanding cell biology because they define relationships between individual genes, and between sets of genes involved in biochemical pathways and protein complexes. Each E-MAP screen quantifies the interactions between a logically selected subset of genes (e.g. genes whose products share a common function). Interactions that occur between genes involved in different cellular processes are not as frequently measured, yet these interactions are important for providing an overview of cellular organization. RESULTS: We introduce a method for combining overlapping E-MAP screens and inferring new interactions between them. We use this method to infer with high confidence 2,240 new strongly epistatic interactions and 34,469 weakly epistatic or neutral interactions. We show that accuracy of the predicted interactions approaches that of replicate experiments and that, like measured interactions, they are enriched for features such as shared biochemical pathways and knockout phenotypes. We constructed an expanded epistasis map for yeast cell protein complexes and show that our new interactions increase the evidence for previously proposed inter-complex connections, and predict many new links. We validated a number of these in the laboratory, including new interactions linking the SWR-C chromatin modifying complex and the nuclear transport apparatus. CONCLUSION: Overall, our data support a modular model of yeast cell protein network organization and show how prediction methods can considerably extend the information that can be extracted from overlapping E-MAP screens.
Authors: M Ashburner; C A Ball; J A Blake; D Botstein; H Butler; J M Cherry; A P Davis; K Dolinski; S S Dwight; J T Eppig; M A Harris; D P Hill; L Issel-Tarver; A Kasarskis; S Lewis; J C Matese; J E Richardson; M Ringwald; G M Rubin; G Sherlock Journal: Nat Genet Date: 2000-05 Impact factor: 38.330
Authors: P Uetz; L Giot; G Cagney; T A Mansfield; R S Judson; J R Knight; D Lockshon; V Narayan; M Srinivasan; P Pochart; A Qureshi-Emili; Y Li; B Godwin; D Conover; T Kalbfleisch; G Vijayadamodar; M Yang; M Johnston; S Fields; J M Rothberg Journal: Nature Date: 2000-02-10 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Michael Costanzo; Anastasia Baryshnikova; Jeremy Bellay; Yungil Kim; Eric D Spear; Carolyn S Sevier; Huiming Ding; Judice L Y Koh; Kiana Toufighi; Sara Mostafavi; Jeany Prinz; Robert P St Onge; Benjamin VanderSluis; Taras Makhnevych; Franco J Vizeacoumar; Solmaz Alizadeh; Sondra Bahr; Renee L Brost; Yiqun Chen; Murat Cokol; Raamesh Deshpande; Zhijian Li; Zhen-Yuan Lin; Wendy Liang; Michaela Marback; Jadine Paw; Bryan-Joseph San Luis; Ermira Shuteriqi; Amy Hin Yan Tong; Nydia van Dyk; Iain M Wallace; Joseph A Whitney; Matthew T Weirauch; Guoqing Zhong; Hongwei Zhu; Walid A Houry; Michael Brudno; Sasan Ragibizadeh; Balázs Papp; Csaba Pál; Frederick P Roth; Guri Giaever; Corey Nislow; Olga G Troyanskaya; Howard Bussey; Gary D Bader; Anne-Claude Gingras; Quaid D Morris; Philip M Kim; Chris A Kaiser; Chad L Myers; Brenda J Andrews; Charles Boone Journal: Science Date: 2010-01-22 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Dorothea Fiedler; Hannes Braberg; Monika Mehta; Gal Chechik; Gerard Cagney; Paromita Mukherjee; Andrea C Silva; Michael Shales; Sean R Collins; Sake van Wageningen; Patrick Kemmeren; Frank C P Holstege; Jonathan S Weissman; Michael-Christopher Keogh; Daphne Koller; Kevan M Shokat; Nevan J Krogan Journal: Cell Date: 2009-03-06 Impact factor: 41.582