Cited by 78Bioinformatics and Genomic NetworksAdvanced Proteomics Techniques and ApplicationsBiotin and Related Studies

A map of human protein interactions derived from co‐expression of human mRNAs and their orthologs

Open access
Ramani, Arun K, Li, Zhihua, Hart, G Traver, Carlson, Mark W, Boutz, Daniel R, Marcotte, Edward M·2008·Molecular Systems Biology

Abstract

The human protein interaction network will offer global insights into the molecular organization of cells and provide a framework for modeling human disease, but the network's large scale demands new approaches. We report a set of 7000 physical associations among human proteins inferred from indirect evidence: the comparison of human mRNA co-expression patterns with those of orthologous genes in five other eukaryotes, which we demonstrate identifies proteins in the same physical complexes. To evaluate the accuracy of the predicted physical associations, we apply quantitative mass spectrometry shotgun proteomics to measure elution profiles of 3013 human proteins during native biochemical fractionation, demonstrating systematically that putative interaction partners tend to co-sediment. We further validate uncharacterized proteins implicated by the associations in ribosome biogenesis, including WBSCR20C, associated with Williams-Beuren syndrome. This meta-analysis therefore exploits non-protein-based data, but successfully predicts associations, including 5589 novel human physical protein associations, with measured accuracies of 54+/-10%, comparable to direct large-scale interaction assays. The new associations' derivation from conserved in vivo phenomena argues strongly for their biological relevance.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/msb.2008.19

Cites

76 of 76 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Signed networks are more predictive of protein interactions and shared pathway relationships than unsigned networks.

    “signed networks are more predictive of protein interactions and shared pathway relationships than unsigned networks38,42,43”
  • There was no pathway or PPI enrichment in these modules, probably owing to inclusion of both positive and negative correlations when computing co-expression relationships (unsigned networks), which is less sensitive to pathway and protein interaction detection.

    “Interestingly, there was no pathway or PPI enrichment in these modules, probably owing to the inclusion of both positive and negative correlations when computing co-expression relationships (unsigned networks), which is a method that is less sensitive to pathway and protein interaction detection38,43.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Carlson MW (2002) Surveying yeast genomic diversity using cDNA microarrays. Masters Thesis, Biomedical Engineering, University of Texas, Austin, pp 60

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ramani, A. K., Li, Z., Hart, G. T., Carlson, M. W., Boutz, D. R., & Marcotte, E. M.
Affiliations
The University of Texas at Austin (US)
Corresponding author
Marcotte, Edward M
Venue
Molecular Systems Biology
Published
2008-04-15
Volume
4
Issue
1
Pages
180-180
ISSN
1744-4292 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2040581784
Cited by
78
References
76
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 5 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 12
FWCI
4.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Molecular Systems Biology (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (R01GM076536)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Bioinformatics and Genomic Networks
  • Physical Sciences › Chemistry › Spectroscopy › Advanced Proteomics Techniques and Applications
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cell Biology › Biotin and Related Studies
Keywords
protein-protein interaction network, orthologs, protein complexes, shotgun proteomics, ribosome biogenesis, Williams syndrome, cross-species comparison
MeSH terms
Animals, Chromosome Mapping, HeLa Cells, Humans, Models, Biological, Proteins, RNA, Messenger, Mass Spectrometry, Reproducibility of Results, Models, Statistical, Gene Expression, Cluster Analysis, Gene Expression Profiling, Protein Interaction Mapping, Proteomics

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review