Large-scale mapping of human protein–protein interactions by mass spectrometry

By R. Ewing, Peter Chu, F. Elisma, Hongyan Li, Paul Taylor, S. Climie, Linda D B McBroom-Cerajewski, Mark D. Robinson, Liam O'Connor, Michael Li and 26 more. Molecular Systems Biology, 2007

1,043 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Mapping protein–protein interactions is an invaluable tool for understanding protein function. Here, we report the first large‐scale study of protein–protein interactions in human cells using a mass spectrometry‐based approach. The study maps protein interactions for 338 bait proteins that were selected based on known or suspected disease and functional associations. Large‐scale immunoprecipitation of Flag‐tagged versions of these proteins followed by LC‐ESI‐MS/MS analysis resulted in the identification of 24 540 potential protein interactions. False positives and redundant hits were filtered out using empirical criteria and a calculated interaction confidence score, producing a data set of 6463 interactions between 2235 distinct proteins. This data set was further cross‐validated using previously published and predicted human protein interactions. In‐depth mining of the data set shows that it represents a valuable source of novel protein–protein interactions with relevance to human diseases. In addition, via our preliminary analysis, we report many novel protein interactions and pathway associations.

Subfields: Cell Biology, Computational Theory and Mathematics, Molecular Biology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/5afb5241335e23a101acda132a36de5c23ac5a46

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Cell Biology

In Computational Theory and Mathematics

In Molecular Biology

Citations in the corpus

A Protein Complex Network of Drosophila melanogaster (2011, background): “This approach has been proven successful in the study of defined metazoan proteomic subspaces (Behrends et al., 2010; Bouwmeester et al., 2004; Ewing et al., 2007; Guerrero et al., 2008; Sowa et al., 2009), but there are no large-scale protein complex maps available for metazoans (reviewed in Gavin ”
A human functional protein interaction network and its application to cancer data analysis (2010, background): “CDK4 ASPM [100] Physical interaction: functional relationship is not clear”
Enhancing the Prioritization of Disease-Causing Genes through Tissue Specific Protein Interaction Networks (2012, methodology): “The network is based on three high throughput experiments [55–57] and the HPRD database [58].”
Less label, more free: Approaches in label‐free quantitative mass spectrometry (2011, methodology): “Affinity purification and mass spectrometry (AP-MS) approaches such as FLAG- and TAP-tagging have revolutionised the field by providing near proteome-wide data on protein associations in yeast [130–132] and humans [133].”
Interactome3D: adding structural details to protein networks (2013, background): “Much effort has been devoted to systematically charting protein inter-relationships in several model organisms, including humans 3–5 .”
Human protein interaction networks across tissues and diseases (2015, background): “…section: This article was submitted to Systems Biology, a section of the journal Frontiers in Genetics Received: 28 May 2015 Accepted: 17 July 2015 Published: Citation: Yeger-Lotem E and Sharan R (2015) Human protein interaction networks across tissues and diseases.”
Network-based methods for human disease gene prediction. (2011, background): “Two main highthroughput technologies have been advanced and are successful in producing a large number of PPIs in humans: (i) a high-throughput yeast two-hybrid (Y2H) system has been developed to systematically screen for direct binary interactions between protein pairs [13–15] and (ii) high-through”
Similarity-based machine learning methods for predicting drug-target interactions: a brief review (2014, methodology): “Typical target similarities can be classified into the following three types: (1) sequence-based similarity can be computed using sequence information from databases such as KEGG GENES [9]; (2) protein– protein interaction (PPI) network-based similarity can be derived from the distance between two t”