Cited by 1,392Bioinformatics and Genomic NetworksFungal and yeast genetics researchAdvanced Proteomics Techniques and Applications

High-Quality Binary Protein Interaction Map of the Yeast Interactome Network

Open access
Yu, Haiyuan, Braun, Pascal, Yıldırım, Muhammed A., Lemmens, Irma, Venkatesan, Kavitha, Sahalie, Julie, Hirozane-Kishikawa, Tomoko, Gebreab, Fana +26 more·2008·Science

Abstract

Current yeast interactome network maps contain several hundred molecular complexes with limited and somewhat controversial representation of direct binary interactions. We carried out a comparative quality assessment of current yeast interactome data sets, demonstrating that high-throughput yeast two-hybrid (Y2H) screening provides high-quality binary interaction information. Because a large fraction of the yeast binary interactome remains to be mapped, we developed an empirically controlled mapping framework to produce a “second-generation” high-quality, high-throughput Y2H data set covering ∼20% of all yeast binary interactions. Both Y2H and affinity purification followed by mass spectrometry (AP/MS) data are of equally high quality but of a fundamentally different and complementary nature, resulting in networks with different topological and biological properties. Compared to co-complex interactome models, this binary map is enriched for transient signaling interactions and intercomplex connections with a highly significant clustering between essential proteins. Rather than correlating with essentiality, protein connectivity correlates with genetic pleiotropy.

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 · 10.1126/science.1158684

Cites

46 of 46 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?

  • High-throughput experimental techniques designed to identify interacting protein partners have results that are far from complete and often mutually inconsistent.

    “Several high-throughput experimental techniques have been designed to identify interacting protein partners23–26, but their results are far from complete and are often mutually inconsistent.”
  • Y2H, APMS, and other high-throughput experimental approaches have identified many pairs of interacting proteins in yeast and other organisms, but there are discrepancies between sets generated using different methods and considerable false positive and false negative rates.

    “Yeast two hybrid (Y2H), affinity-purification mass spectrometry (APMS), and other high-throughput experimental approaches have identified many pairs of interacting proteins in yeast and other organisms (1–5), but there are discrepancies between sets generated using the different methods and considerable false positive and false negative rates (6–8).”

    From Computed structures of core eukaryotic protein complexes (2021) · cites this paper as [5]

  • The Direct Coupling Analysis (DCA) method could not effectively distinguish a gold standard set of 768 yeast protein pairs known to interact from a much larger set of 768,000 primarily non-interacting pairs (area under the curve: 0.016).

    “In a first set of calculations, we found that even with the advantages of S. cerevisiae and improved ortholog identification, the statistical method (Direct Coupling Analysis, DCA) we had used in our previous coevolution-guided protein-protein interaction (PPI) screen in Prokaryotes (9) (the more accurate GREMLIN (11) method is too slow for this) could not effectively distinguish a “gold standard””

    From Computed structures of core eukaryotic protein complexes (2021) · cites this paper as [5]

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. [1]Fromont-Racine M Rain JC Legrain P Nat. Genet 1997 16 277 9207794

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Yu, H., Braun, P., Yıldırım, M. A., Lemmens, I., Venkatesan, K., Sahalie, J., Hirozane-Kishikawa, T., Gebreab, F., Li, N., Simonis, N., Hao, T., Rual, J.-F., Dricot, A., Vazquez, A., Murray, R. R., Simon, C., Tardivo, L., Tam, S., Svrzikapa, N., Fan, C., de Smet, A.-S., Motyl, A., Hudson, M. E., Park, J., Xin, X., Cusick, M. E., Moore, T., Boone, C., Snyder, M., Roth, F. P., Barabási, A.-L., Tavernier, J., Hill, D. E., & Vidal, M.
Affiliations
  • Harvard University (US)
  • Center for Cancer Systems Biology (CCSB), Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA 02115, USA.
  • Northeastern University (US)
Corresponding author
  • Yu, Haiyuan
  • Yıldırım, Muhammed A.
  • Vidal, Marc
Venue
Science
Published
2008-10-03
Volume
322
Issue
5898
Pages
104-110
ISSN
  • 0036-8075 (ISSN-L)
  • 1095-9203
OpenAlex
W2109248504
Cited by
1,392
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 26 · 2024: 29 · 2023: 34 · 2022: 63 · 2021: 55 · 2020: 66 · 2019: 65 · 2018: 67 · 2017: 72 · 2016: 68 · 2015: 78 · 2014: 79 · 2013: 122 · 2012: 172
FWCI
51.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Science (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Ghent University Academic Bibliography (Ghent University) (submittedVersion)
  • Dépôt institutionnel de l'Université libre de Bruxelles (Université Libre de Bruxelles) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • U.S. Public Health Service (U01A1070499-01)
  • National Human Genome Research Institute (R01HG001715, R01HG003224, HG003224)
  • National Cancer Institute (U56CA113004)
  • National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (U01AI070499)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Bioinformatics and Genomic Networks
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Fungal and yeast genetics research
  • Physical Sciences › Chemistry › Spectroscopy › Advanced Proteomics Techniques and Applications
Keywords
yeast interactome, protein-protein interaction network, yeast two-hybrid screening, affinity purification mass spectrometry, protein complexes, essential proteins, protein connectivity, pleiotropy, network topology
MeSH terms
Protein Binding, Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Mass Spectrometry, Transcription Factors, Signal Transduction, Computational Biology, Proteome, Two-Hybrid System Techniques, Protein Interaction Mapping, Saccharomyces cerevisiae Proteins, Protein Array Analysis, Proteomics, Gene Regulatory Networks, Metabolic Networks and Pathways

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