Analysis of Biological Networks: Network Robustness and Evolution
|
|
- Ruby Caldwell
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Analysis of Biological Networks: Network Robustness and Evolution Lecturer: Roded Sharan Scribers: Sasha Medvedovsky and Eitan Hirsh Lecture 14, February 2, Introduction The chapter is divided into two topics: Network Robustness and Network Evolution. We discuss biological networks robustness and analyze the way these networks evolve. We expect the networks robustness to be rooted in its evolution process. 1.1 Network Robustness In this section we define measures of topological robustness, and use them to study exponential and scalefree networks. Then we explore the relation between topological robustness and the corresponding biological robustness. 1.2 Network Evolution In this section we explore evolutionary processes that shape the development of PPI networks over time. At first, we base the entire model on gene duplication with preferential link attachment. However, soon we explain why this process alone cannot shape the PPI network, and additional processes of link loss and gain are added (commonly called link dynamics). Finally, we state that link dynamics is the main process that shapes the network, and gene duplication has only a minor effect. 2 Network Robustness As biological networks are required to function in various conditions, we expect evolution to provide them with robust structures. For example, fruit fly can develop in two distinct environments: one rich in glucose and the second rich in galactose. This ability may imply that the fly s PPI network is robust enough to allow it to function even when some of its nodes are disabled. There are many ways to decide if a network is robust or not. In this section we ll discuss topological robustness, which is measured by the network s resilience in terms of measures on largest components size, average distance etc. There are two scenarios for which network robustness is measured: Failure - Random node removal. Attack - A removal of chosen nodes from the network. In this paper we are going to apply a specific type of attack, called hub attack: at each step the node with the maximal degree is removed. 1
2 Figure 1: The first two diagrams show an exponential random network and the effect of random failure of nodes on the networks connectivity. The second two diagrams show the effect of random node removal in a scale free random network. It can be seen that the connectivity is hardly damaged. The last two diagrams show the effect of a hub attack on the scale-free network, in which case the network s connectivity is heavily damaged [2]. 2.1 Failure vs. Attack We would like to analyze the different effects of failure and attack on networks with different properties. As we have seen in chapter 2, biological networks usually have a scale free degree distribution. In [2] the authors tried to simulate the effects of failure and attack on such scale-free random networks. Figure 1 shows that scale-free networks tend to be much more robust, in terms of network connectivity, than exponential random networks when random nodes are removed, but they are more vulnerable to hub attacks. This result can be explained by presence of hubs in scale-free networks. Random node removal is more likely to remove low-degree nodes while leaving the hubs, thus the impact on network connectivity is expected to be small. On the other hand, in a targeted attack the hubs are removed, which is expected to damage the network connectivity. In order to further evaluate the effect of failure and attack on the two types of networks, the behavior of the diameter in the two types of networks was examined as a function of the fraction of nodes being removed. The results in Figure 2 strengthen the previous statement that scale-free networks are more robust than exponential networks when it comes to failures, but more vulnerable to attacks. We can also see that exponential random networks behave the same in case of failure or attack. The authors performed an additional experiment comparing the different behavior of exponential and scale-free networks under failures and attacks based on the size of the largest component and the avg. size of the other components (Figure 3). As before, we see that exponential random networks behave the same under failure and attack, whereas scale-free networks are resilient to failure and vulnerable to attack. 2
3 Figure 2: Changes in the diameter of the network as a function of the fraction of the removed nodes. a Comparison between the exponential (E) and scale-free (SF) network models, each containing N = 10, 000 nodes and 20, 000 links. b Changes in the diameter of the Internet under random failures (squares) or attacks (circles). c Changes in the diameter of the world-wide web under random failures (squares) or attacks (circles) [1]. Figure 3: The relative size of the largest cluster S (open symbols) and the average size of the isolated clusters < s > (filled symbols) as function of the fraction of removed nodes f for the same systems. The size S is defined as the fraction of nodes contained in the largest cluster. a Fragmentation of the exponential network under random failures (squares) and attacks (circles). b Fragmentation of the scale-free network under random failures (blue squares) and attacks (red circles). The inset shows the error tolerance curves for the whole range of f, indicating that the main cluster falls apart only after it has been completely deflated. c and d show the effect of failure and attack on the Internet and www, respectively [1]. 3
4 Figure 4: The fraction of essential proteins with exactly k links in the yeast proteome [7]. Figure 5: A comparison between essential and non-essential nodes centrality properties. The comparison covers the betweeness, connectivity and closeness centrality properties. The results clearly show a correlation between essentiality and centrality [5]. 2.2 Essentiality and Centrality A previous work studied the relation between structural and functional properties of biological networks. Specifically, they found that nodes in PPI networks with many links tend to be more essential for yeast cell survival (Figure 4). An extension of this work examined the relation between node centrality and essentiality. A node s centrality can be defined in various ways: Betweenness - the fraction of shortest paths between all graph nodes, which includes a node Connectivity - the degree of a node Closeness - inverse of mean distance to other nodes in the graph A thorough examination done in [5] verifies the correlation between essentiality and centrality. As can be seen in Table 5, when examining three species (yeast, fly and worm) we see a strong correlation between the essentiality of a protein and its centrality, measured by its betweenness, connectivity and closeness. 4
5 Figure 6: Probability densities of the average PCCs (Pearson correlation coefficients) were calculated from a global expression profiling compendium. The number n in the panel refers to the number of data points for each gene. Average PCCs for hubs in the FYI (red curve) show a clear bimodal distribution that is used to separate date and party hubs (located by the arrow). No bimodal distribution is observed with the average PCCs of non-hub proteins (cyan curve) or for hubs in randomized networks (black curve) [6]. 2.3 Essentiality depends on Functionality In the previous sections we showed that topologically central nodes (hubs) tend to be more essential, and saw their contribution to structural robustness. In this section we ll examine the essentiality of different types of hubs and the effect of their removal on the topological robustness of the network. We can divide hubs into two categories: Party hubs - proteins that have many simultaneous interactions (multiple interactions happening under the same conditions). Date hubs - proteins that have many different interaction partners, but only a few under any single conditions Party vs. Date Hubs As we have seen in chapter 1, PPI data is generated via several methods (e.g. coip and Y2H). All of these methods create stationary data and disregard the dynamic behavior of these interactions over time. Thus we cannot distinguish between party hubs and date hubs by looking at the PPI network alone. In order to overcome this problem, we need to use some other available data, e.g. gene expression. We would like to check the gene expression correlation a hub node has with its neighbors under various conditions. We can then check whether there really are two distinct types of hubs - those that are more correlated with their neighbors (they will be called party hubs), and those that are less correlated (date hubs). The authors in [6] considered only high-confidence PPIs (with at least 2 sources), and defined hubs as nodes with more than 5 neighbors. The result of their experiment can be seen in Figure 6. Surprisingly, we can clearly see the bimodal distribution that is used to separate date hubs from party hubs. Another possible way to distinguish between party hubs and date hubs is the diversity of the cellular localization of their neighbors. Party hubs tend to interact within a specific cell region, while date hubs interact in different cell regions. Figure 7 shows some examples of party and date hubs and states that party hubs have mostly intramodule interactions (within the same functional module), while date hubs have mostly inter-module interactions (between different functional modules). Here a module is a group of proteins with similar mrna expression patterns. 5
6 Figure 7: In this schematic protein interaction network, proteins are colored according to mutual similarity in their mrna expression patterns. Party hubs are highly correlated in expression with their partners, and presumably interact with them at similar times. The partners of date hubs exhibit more limited coexpression, and presumably the corresponding physical interactions occur at different times and/or different locations [6]. Now that we have seen that there are two types of hubs and that we know how to distinguish between them, let s go back and check how this observation influences network robustness. As can be seen in Figure 8 the network is resilient to loss of party hubs, however vulnerable to deletion of date hubs. As mentioned, party hubs are inter-module, thus take part in a specific function. Due to the functional resilience of the network we can expect it to be more resilient to loss of party hubs. To further investigate the differences between date and party hubs, the authors compare the network resilience to deletion of date hubs and party hubs with similar properties, such as degrees and clustering coefficients on the FYI (filtered yeast interactome) network (Figure 9). As shown, removal of party hubs does not affect the connectivity of the network and thus resembles failures, whereas removal of date hubs causes rapid network breakdown Essentiality and Hubs A further study of the biological relevance of date and party hubs reveals a correlation to essentiality of date and party hubs and their participation in genetic interactions. As can be seen in Figure 10b, in singlegene knockout experiments date and party hubs have similar chances to be essential. However, among known genetic interactions there are twice as many interactions involving date hubs, as there are interactions involving party hubs (see Figure 10c). Note though, that these differences may result from different factors, such as more studies involving date hubs, total number of date and party hubs etc. 6
7 Figure 8: The effects on the characteristic path length of the network on gradual node removal. Random removal of nodes (failures) is represented by the green line, attacks against all hubs by the brown line, attacks against party hubs by the blue line, and attacks against date hubs by the red line. The breakdown point is the threshold after which the main component of the network starts disintegrating [6]. Figure 9: Subsets of date and party hubs with comparable degree k and clustering coefficients C (lines are colored as in figure 8) [6]. 7
8 Figure 10: b Date and party hubs are both more likely to be essential than non-hubs, but their single knockout affects cellular viability to the same extent. c Date hubs participate in more genetic interactions than party hubs or non-hubs, as measured by genetic interaction density (GID) based on genetic interactions gathered at MIPS [9, 6]. 3 PPI Network Evolution In this chapter we explore various possible models of network development, during evolution, focusing on PPI network evolution. 3.1 Growth and Preferential Attachment A simple model for evolution of PPI networks is network growth: nodes with fixed degree m are constantly added to the network, and are never removed. A refinement to this model is preferential attachment, which states that the probability that a new node connects to existing ones is proportional to their degrees. One way to validate these models is to divide proteins into age groups, and see if there are differences in degrees of proteins from different groups. The authors in [4] divided proteins to age groups, according to the evolutionary stage at which the proteins emerged. First, they analyzed the yeast PPI network and by using BLAST, found matching proteins in E.coli, Arabydopsis and Fission Yeast. Then they divided the proteins into 4 age groups, based on their presence in the different species. for example: a protein found in all 4 species was tagged as group 4 and a protein that was found in yeast and fission yeast but not in E.coli and Arabidopsis would be tagged as group 2 (Figure 11). Next we show how the authors used the interactions between proteins from different age groups in order to examine the growth process Empirical Evidence for Growth In growth model (both with or without preferential attachment), we expect older proteins to have higher degrees, since they had more chances to connect with new proteins. Figure 12 shows evidence that the growth model is correct: clearly, the older proteins have higher degrees on average [4] Empirical Evidence for Preferential Attachment In the following experiment the authors examine the number of links attached to proteins in newer age groups, as function of the number of links to proteins in older age groups. This analysis shows that proteins with higher degrees are more likely to gain new interactions. Figure 13 shows that proteins that started with 8
9 Figure 11: A schematic representation of the relative position of the four studied organisms on the phylogenetic tree [4]. Figure 12: Averaged connectivity for four age groups of yeast proteins. Groups are numbered in increasing age order: group 1 proteins (those with no similarities in fission yeast, Arabidopsis, or E.coli genomes) are expected to be the newest, and group 4 proteins (with similarities in all three organisms) are expected to be the oldest. Results are presented for the whole interactions database (solid symbols), and for a restricted set excluding the low-confidence interactions (open symbols). For most data points, the error bar is smaller than the symbol [4]. 9
10 Figure 13: Preferential attachment in protein network evolution. The averaged number of links a protein acquires to proteins from newer groups as a function of k, its number of connections to all other (older) proteins (annotated by N(k)). The solid lines are the integration over the values of N(k). We can see they resemble the power-law function k 2 (presented by dashed line for comparison). Results have been obtained using the full interactions database. a New links to proteins from group 1 alone, as a function of the number of links in groups 2, 3 and 4. b New links to groups 1 and 2, as a function of the number of links in groups 3 and 4. c New links to groups 1, 2 and 3 for all group-4 proteins [4]. more links gained more links. Thus the experiment provides evidence for preferential attachment. Moreover, we can see that the distribution of the number of acquired links resembles power-law. Further support for the preferential attachment model is shown in [11]. This model considers pairs of paralogous proteins, assuming that interactions that are present in one protein but not in the other were added after the duplication took place. Then they compare the chance to develop new interactions to the degree of the protein. Figure 14 shows that there is an approximately linear association between protein degree and chance to develop new interactions. 3.2 Link Dynamics Until now we discussed only one possible mechanism of evolutionary network development - the addition of new nodes with a fixed number of links. In biological networks this process is explained by gene duplication. But can network development be explained solely by this process of gene duplication? According to [10], the effective rate of gene duplication is duplications per gene per Myrs. However, examination of duplicate genes shows that they diverge in their interactions much faster (see Figure 15). This means that the divergence can not be explained solely by attachment of new duplicated genes, suggesting that there should be some additional process that affects evolutionary development. 10
11 Figure 14: Empirical evidence for preferential attachment in protein interaction networks. Horizontal-axis shows the degree d of the protein. The vertical axis shows the likelihood P d that a protein of degree d has evolved new interactions. There is a strong, approximately linear association between protein degree and the likelihood to evolve new interactions [11]. Figure 15: The effect of gene duplications on gene products that interact with proteins. Shortly after a gene duplication, the products P and P of the duplicate genes will interact with the same proteins. Eventually, some or all of the common interactions will be lost, and new interactions may be gained by either protein. In the rightmost panel, protein P has lost one interaction and gained a new interaction partner, whereas protein P has lost two interactions. If the number of common interaction partners is taken as a measure of functional overlap, then one of the functions of P is also covered by P, and vice versa [10]. 11
12 Figure 16: a Histogram of the fraction of duplicate genes whose products have at least one interacting protein in common as a function of K s, the fraction of synonymous substitutions per synonymous site [8]. Gene pairs were grouped according to their K s values into bins of width 0.5 whose lower boundaries are indicated on the x-axis. The horizontal line labeled random expectation indicates the estimated probability that two proteins chosen at random from the entire network share an interaction partner. This estimate was obtained numerically by randomly choosing 1,000 pairs of proteins from the network. Duplicate gene pairs whose products interact with each other are included in the values shown here. Asterisks above a bar indicate that the number of duplicates with shared interactions is significantly different from the random expectation as assessed by a χ 2 test. b Mean and standard deviation of path lengths among products of duplicate genes in the same component as a function of K s. The solid and dotted horizontal lines indicate mean and standard deviation in path lengths between two proteins chosen at random from the same subnet within the protein contact graph, as estimated by choosing 1,000 protein pairs at random [10] Interaction Turnover In order to investigate the divergence speed of duplicate genes, the amount of common interactions two duplicate proteins have was measured with respect to the time the duplication took place. In order to estimate the time of duplication, the fraction of substitutions per synonymous site, denoted K s, is examined [8]. Substitutions in synonymous sites do not affect the resulting protein, thus they are under fewer evolutionary constraints than are nonsynonymous sites. As can be seen in Figure 16, the fraction of duplicates with shared interaction decreases very fast after duplication (K s = 1 is approximately 100Myrs). We also see that almost immediately after duplication (K s = 0.5) the mean pathlength between duplicates becomes similar to the mean distance in the network. These findings suggest that after duplication of proteins, both duplicates loose some of their interactions Rate of Interaction Loss In order to calculate the interaction loss rate the authors examines duplicate proteins with K s < 2, and assumes that the diversification observed between them is caused by interaction loss. They argue that the 12
13 lower bound for interaction loss rate is 2.3X10 3 /Myr, which results from the number of lost interactions divided by the number of interactions after duplication, divided by 200Myr. They also note that the actual rate may be much higher, because (1) the interactions lost by both proteins are disregarded, and (2) many duplicates are younger than 200M yr. Notice though, that this calculation arises from the assumption that the diversification is caused only by interaction loss, which might not be true Interaction Gain In the previous section we have examined interaction loss. Is there also a process of interaction gain? Figure 17a shows patterns of interactions between proteins of duplicate genes, which may have evolved either through interaction loss or gain. Some of the patterns, including the most common pattern, two interacting duplicate proteins with no self interaction, are more easily explained by interaction gain than loss (see Figure 17b) Rate of Interaction Gain In order to evaluate the interaction gain rate we look at interacting duplicates that do not self interact. When processing the PPI network, the author of [10] finds that 13 out of 9059 duplicate pairs with K s < 5 interact without a self-interaction in neither of them (seen in figure 17b). Assuming these interactions are a result of interaction gain, the author concludes that the interaction gain rate is approximately 10 2 new interactions per protein per Myrs. Note that in the past two sections, the calculations of interaction loss and gain rates can only suggest an order of magnitude of the actual rates Preferential Attachment in Interaction Gain Interaction gain, as in the previous growth model, seems to follow preferential attachment. When observing all cross-interactions (interacting duplicates), and treating them as new attachments, we see that most interacting pairs are proteins with high degrees (Figure 18). Based on this finding it was suggested [3] that: The higher the protein s degree the more chances it has to gain a new interaction. The choice is asymmetric: one protein is chosen uniformly and the other according to its degree. This would explain the correlation between the fraction of cross-interaction and k + k. If the choice were symmetric, we would expect the correlation to be with kk. 3.3 Duplication vs. Link Dynamics We now know that there are two main processes, which shape the PPI networks we are looking at: the duplication process, in which a node (protein) is duplicated together with its interactions, and link dynamics, in which edges are removed or new edges are added (see Figure 19). In [3] the authors try to examine the influence of the duplication process, compared to the influence of link dynamics. Their conclusion is that the duplication influence is negligible. If the duplication process had substantional influence, we would expect each node (especially with high degree) to have a high fraction of pairs of neighbors that are products of gene duplication. Figure 20 shows that this is not the case. This fraction is small, and does not increase with node degree. 13
14 Figure 17: Self-interactions and interactions between products of duplicate genes. a Self-interactions of genes with paralogs and interactions between duplicate genes may have evolved by two different routes. First, a gene product may have been a self-interactor before duplication. In this case, observed selfinteractions and interactions between paralogs are a reflection of self-interaction before duplication. Second, the interactions may have evolved de novo after the duplication. b Number of paralogous gene pairs observed in the yeast protein interaction networks with the indicated combination of self and cross-interaction. The last category of five duplicates, in which only one of the paralogs is self-interacting, involves 16 paralogous gene pairs, but 11 of them are redundant. Notice the abundance of duplicate pairs without selfinteractions (13/25) and the small number of gene pairs (1/25) where both genes are self-interacting [10]. Figure 18: The histogram shows the fraction of cross-interactions versus the sum of the connectivity of the two participating proteins (k + k ). We can see there is a strong correlation between the two figures [3]. 14
15 Figure 19: The elementary processes of protein network evolution. The progression of time is symbolized by arrows. a Link attachment, b link detachment and c gene duplication. Empirical data suggests duplications occur at a much lower rate than link dynamics and that redundant links are lost subsequently (often in an asymmetric fashion), which affects the connectivity of the duplicate pair and of all its binding partners [3]. Figure 20: The histogram shows the fraction of duplicate pairs among the k(k 1) 2 neighbor pairs of a node of connectivity k plotted versus k. A high number of duplicate pairs would be expected if duplications were a significant mechanism of link gain [3]. 15
16 4 Summary In section 2 we have introduced the concept of topological robustness and showed that biological networks are more robust than random networks, and showed that this robustness is rooted in the existence of hubs in the biological networks. Then we showed that in biological networks hubs tend to be more essential. We divided the hubs into two types - party hubs and date hubs - and examined the differences between them. In section 3 we examined different models of network evolution. We started with examining a model based on network growth with preferential link attachment and showed supporting evidence for this model. Then we introduced a model based on link dynamics, and showed that it is more suited to explain the divergence between duplicate genes. Finally we showed that link dynamics processes are more dominant than gene duplication in network evolution. References [1] R. Albert, H. Jeong, and A.L. Barabasi. Error and attack tolerance of complex networks. Nature, 406, [2] A.L. Barabasi and E. Bonabeau. Scale-free networks. Scientific American, 228:60 69, [3] J. Berg, M. Lassig, and A. Wagner. Structure and evolution of protein interaction networks: A statistical model for link dynamics and gene duplications. BMC Evolutionary Biology, 4, [4] E. Eisenberg and E.Y. Levanon. Preferential attachment in the protein network evolution. Physical Review Letters, 91, [5] M.W. Hahn and A.D. Kern. Comparative genomics of centrality and essentiality in three eukaryotic protein-interaction. Molecular Biology and Evolution, 22: , [6] J.D. Han, N. Bertin, T. Hao, D.S. Goldberg,.F. Berriz, L.V. Zhang, D. Dupuy, A.J. Walhout, M.E. Cusick, F.P. Roth, and M. Vidal. Evidence for dynamically organized modularity in the yeast proteinprotein interaction network. Nature, 430:88 93, [7] H. Jeong, S.P. Mason, A.L. Barabasi, and Z.N. Oltvai. Lethality and centrality in protein networks. Nature, 411:41 42, [8] W.H. Li. Unbiased estimation of the rates of synonymous and nonsynonymous substitution. J. Molecular Evolution, 36, [9] H.W. Mewes, J. Hani, F. Pfeiffer, and D. Frishman. MIPS: a database for protein sequences and complete genomes. Nucleic Acids Research, 26(1):33 37, [10] A. Wagner. The yeast protein interaction network evolves rapidly and contains few redundant duplicate genes. Molecular Biology and Evolution, 18: , [11] A. Wagner. How the global structure of protein interaction networks evolves. Proc. Biol. Sci., 270: ,
Evidence for dynamically organized modularity in the yeast protein-protein interaction network
Evidence for dynamically organized modularity in the yeast protein-protein interaction network Sari Bombino Helsinki 27.3.2007 UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI Department of Computer Science Seminar on Computational
More informationNetwork Biology: Understanding the cell s functional organization. Albert-László Barabási Zoltán N. Oltvai
Network Biology: Understanding the cell s functional organization Albert-László Barabási Zoltán N. Oltvai Outline: Evolutionary origin of scale-free networks Motifs, modules and hierarchical networks Network
More informationCell biology traditionally identifies proteins based on their individual actions as catalysts, signaling
Lethality and centrality in protein networks Cell biology traditionally identifies proteins based on their individual actions as catalysts, signaling molecules, or building blocks of cells and microorganisms.
More informationThe architecture of complexity: the structure and dynamics of complex networks.
SMR.1656-36 School and Workshop on Structure and Function of Complex Networks 16-28 May 2005 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More informationDivergence Pattern of Duplicate Genes in Protein-Protein Interactions Follows the Power Law
Divergence Pattern of Duplicate Genes in Protein-Protein Interactions Follows the Power Law Ze Zhang,* Z. W. Luo,* Hirohisa Kishino,à and Mike J. Kearsey *School of Biosciences, University of Birmingham,
More informationLecture 4: Yeast as a model organism for functional and evolutionary genomics. Part II
Lecture 4: Yeast as a model organism for functional and evolutionary genomics Part II A brief review What have we discussed: Yeast genome in a glance Gene expression can tell us about yeast functions Transcriptional
More informationSelf Similar (Scale Free, Power Law) Networks (I)
Self Similar (Scale Free, Power Law) Networks (I) E6083: lecture 4 Prof. Predrag R. Jelenković Dept. of Electrical Engineering Columbia University, NY 10027, USA {predrag}@ee.columbia.edu February 7, 2007
More informationErzsébet Ravasz Advisor: Albert-László Barabási
Hierarchical Networks Erzsébet Ravasz Advisor: Albert-László Barabási Introduction to networks How to model complex networks? Clustering and hierarchy Hierarchical organization of cellular metabolism The
More informationHow Scale-free Type-based Networks Emerge from Instance-based Dynamics
How Scale-free Type-based Networks Emerge from Instance-based Dynamics Tom Lenaerts, Hugues Bersini and Francisco C. Santos IRIDIA, CP 194/6, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Avenue Franklin Roosevelt 50,
More informationOverview. Overview. Social networks. What is a network? 10/29/14. Bioinformatics I. Networks are everywhere! Introduction to Networks
Bioinformatics I Overview CPBS 7711 October 29, 2014 Protein interaction networks Debra Goldberg debra@colorado.edu Networks, protein interaction networks (PINs) Network models What can we learn from PINs
More informationBioinformatics I. CPBS 7711 October 29, 2015 Protein interaction networks. Debra Goldberg
Bioinformatics I CPBS 7711 October 29, 2015 Protein interaction networks Debra Goldberg debra@colorado.edu Overview Networks, protein interaction networks (PINs) Network models What can we learn from PINs
More informationBioinformatics 2. Yeast two hybrid. Proteomics. Proteomics
GENOME Bioinformatics 2 Proteomics protein-gene PROTEOME protein-protein METABOLISM Slide from http://www.nd.edu/~networks/ Citrate Cycle Bio-chemical reactions What is it? Proteomics Reveal protein Protein
More informationDynamics and Inference on Biological Networks
Dynamics and Inference on Biological Networks [Bonneau et al. 2006] Sumeet Agarwal (sumeet@iitd.ac.in) Outline Part I: Network Dynamics Part II: Network Inference from Time Series Data What do we mean
More informationBioinformatics: Network Analysis
Bioinformatics: Network Analysis Comparative Network Analysis COMP 572 (BIOS 572 / BIOE 564) - Fall 2013 Luay Nakhleh, Rice University 1 Biomolecular Network Components 2 Accumulation of Network Components
More informationBio 1B Lecture Outline (please print and bring along) Fall, 2007
Bio 1B Lecture Outline (please print and bring along) Fall, 2007 B.D. Mishler, Dept. of Integrative Biology 2-6810, bmishler@berkeley.edu Evolution lecture #5 -- Molecular genetics and molecular evolution
More informationTypes of biological networks. I. Intra-cellurar networks
Types of biological networks I. Intra-cellurar networks 1 Some intra-cellular networks: 1. Metabolic networks 2. Transcriptional regulation networks 3. Cell signalling networks 4. Protein-protein interaction
More informationGraph Alignment and Biological Networks
Graph Alignment and Biological Networks Johannes Berg http://www.uni-koeln.de/ berg Institute for Theoretical Physics University of Cologne Germany p.1/12 Networks in molecular biology New large-scale
More informationnetworks in molecular biology Wolfgang Huber
networks in molecular biology Wolfgang Huber networks in molecular biology Regulatory networks: components = gene products interactions = regulation of transcription, translation, phosphorylation... Metabolic
More informationProteomics. Yeast two hybrid. Proteomics - PAGE techniques. Data obtained. What is it?
Proteomics What is it? Reveal protein interactions Protein profiling in a sample Yeast two hybrid screening High throughput 2D PAGE Automatic analysis of 2D Page Yeast two hybrid Use two mating strains
More informationChapter 8: The Topology of Biological Networks. Overview
Chapter 8: The Topology of Biological Networks 8.1 Introduction & survey of network topology Prof. Yechiam Yemini (YY) Computer Science Department Columbia University A gallery of networks Small-world
More informationV 5 Robustness and Modularity
Bioinformatics 3 V 5 Robustness and Modularity Mon, Oct 29, 2012 Network Robustness Network = set of connections Failure events: loss of edges loss of nodes (together with their edges) loss of connectivity
More informationIn Search of the Biological Significance of Modular Structures in Protein Networks
In Search of the Biological Significance of Modular Structures in Protein Networks Zhi Wang, Jianzhi Zhang * Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan,
More informationBioControl - Week 6, Lecture 1
BioControl - Week 6, Lecture 1 Goals of this lecture Large metabolic networks organization Design principles for small genetic modules - Rules based on gene demand - Rules based on error minimization Suggested
More informationNetwork Science: Principles and Applications
Network Science: Principles and Applications CS 695 - Fall 2016 Amarda Shehu,Fei Li [amarda, lifei](at)gmu.edu Department of Computer Science George Mason University 1 Outline of Today s Class 2 Robustness
More informationSupplementary text for the section Interactions conserved across species: can one select the conserved interactions?
1 Supporting Information: What Evidence is There for the Homology of Protein-Protein Interactions? Anna C. F. Lewis, Nick S. Jones, Mason A. Porter, Charlotte M. Deane Supplementary text for the section
More informationCS224W: Analysis of Networks Jure Leskovec, Stanford University
CS224W: Analysis of Networks Jure Leskovec, Stanford University http://cs224w.stanford.edu 10/30/17 Jure Leskovec, Stanford CS224W: Social and Information Network Analysis, http://cs224w.stanford.edu 2
More informationarxiv: v2 [physics.soc-ph] 15 Nov 2017
arxiv:1702.00239v2 [physics.soc-ph] 15 Nov 2017 Mean Field Analysis of Algorithms for Scale-free Networks in Molecular Biology S Konini and EJ Janse van Rensburg Department of Mathematics and Statistics,
More informationComplex (Biological) Networks
Complex (Biological) Networks Today: Measuring Network Topology Thursday: Analyzing Metabolic Networks Elhanan Borenstein Some slides are based on slides from courses given by Roded Sharan and Tomer Shlomi
More informationComparison of Protein-Protein Interaction Confidence Assignment Schemes
Comparison of Protein-Protein Interaction Confidence Assignment Schemes Silpa Suthram 1, Tomer Shlomi 2, Eytan Ruppin 2, Roded Sharan 2, and Trey Ideker 1 1 Department of Bioengineering, University of
More informationBiological Networks: Comparison, Conservation, and Evolution via Relative Description Length By: Tamir Tuller & Benny Chor
Biological Networks:,, and via Relative Description Length By: Tamir Tuller & Benny Chor Presented by: Noga Grebla Content of the presentation Presenting the goals of the research Reviewing basic terms
More informationGraph Theory and Networks in Biology
Graph Theory and Networks in Biology Oliver Mason and Mark Verwoerd Hamilton Institute, National University of Ireland Maynooth, Co. Kildare, Ireland {oliver.mason, mark.verwoerd}@nuim.ie January 17, 2007
More information6.207/14.15: Networks Lecture 12: Generalized Random Graphs
6.207/14.15: Networks Lecture 12: Generalized Random Graphs 1 Outline Small-world model Growing random networks Power-law degree distributions: Rich-Get-Richer effects Models: Uniform attachment model
More informationV 6 Network analysis
V 6 Network analysis - Dijkstra algorithm: compute shortest pathways - Graph layout - Network robustness - Graph modularity Fri, May 4, 2018 Bioinformatics 3 SS 18 V 6 1 The Shortest Path Problem Problem:
More informationGRAPH-THEORETICAL COMPARISON REVEALS STRUCTURAL DIVERGENCE OF HUMAN PROTEIN INTERACTION NETWORKS
141 GRAPH-THEORETICAL COMPARISON REVEALS STRUCTURAL DIVERGENCE OF HUMAN PROTEIN INTERACTION NETWORKS MATTHIAS E. FUTSCHIK 1 ANNA TSCHAUT 2 m.futschik@staff.hu-berlin.de tschaut@zedat.fu-berlin.de GAUTAM
More informationComplex (Biological) Networks
Complex (Biological) Networks Today: Measuring Network Topology Thursday: Analyzing Metabolic Networks Elhanan Borenstein Some slides are based on slides from courses given by Roded Sharan and Tomer Shlomi
More informationFine-scale dissection of functional protein network. organization by dynamic neighborhood analysis
Fine-scale dissection of functional protein network organization by dynamic neighborhood analysis Kakajan Komurov 1, Mehmet H. Gunes 2, Michael A. White 1 1 Department of Cell Biology, University of Texas
More informationGraph Theory and Networks in Biology arxiv:q-bio/ v1 [q-bio.mn] 6 Apr 2006
Graph Theory and Networks in Biology arxiv:q-bio/0604006v1 [q-bio.mn] 6 Apr 2006 Oliver Mason and Mark Verwoerd February 4, 2008 Abstract In this paper, we present a survey of the use of graph theoretical
More informationNetwork alignment and querying
Network biology minicourse (part 4) Algorithmic challenges in genomics Network alignment and querying Roded Sharan School of Computer Science, Tel Aviv University Multiple Species PPI Data Rapid growth
More informationLecture 8: Temporal programs and the global structure of transcription networks. Chap 5 of Alon. 5.1 Introduction
Lecture 8: Temporal programs and the global structure of transcription networks Chap 5 of Alon 5. Introduction We will see in this chapter that sensory transcription networks are largely made of just four
More informationWritten Exam 15 December Course name: Introduction to Systems Biology Course no
Technical University of Denmark Written Exam 15 December 2008 Course name: Introduction to Systems Biology Course no. 27041 Aids allowed: Open book exam Provide your answers and calculations on separate
More informationSystems biology and biological networks
Systems Biology Workshop Systems biology and biological networks Center for Biological Sequence Analysis Networks in electronics Radio kindly provided by Lazebnik, Cancer Cell, 2002 Systems Biology Workshop,
More informationRobust Community Detection Methods with Resolution Parameter for Complex Detection in Protein Protein Interaction Networks
Robust Community Detection Methods with Resolution Parameter for Complex Detection in Protein Protein Interaction Networks Twan van Laarhoven and Elena Marchiori Institute for Computing and Information
More informationStability and topology of scale-free networks under attack and defense strategies
Stability and topology of scale-free networks under attack and defense strategies Lazaros K. Gallos, Reuven Cohen 2, Panos Argyrakis, Armin Bunde 3, and Shlomo Havlin 2 Department of Physics, University
More informationProtein-protein interaction networks Prof. Peter Csermely
Protein-Protein Interaction Networks 1 Department of Medical Chemistry Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary www.linkgroup.hu csermely@eok.sote.hu Advantages of multi-disciplinarity Networks have general
More informationImproving evolutionary models of protein interaction networks
Bioinformatics Advance Access published November 9, 2010 Improving evolutionary models of protein interaction networks Todd A. Gibson 1, Debra S. Goldberg 1, 1 Department of Computer Science, University
More informationBiological Networks Analysis
Biological Networks Analysis Degree Distribution and Network Motifs Genome 559: Introduction to Statistical and Computational Genomics Elhanan Borenstein Networks: Networks vs. graphs A collection of nodesand
More informationTools and Algorithms in Bioinformatics
Tools and Algorithms in Bioinformatics GCBA815, Fall 2015 Week-4 BLAST Algorithm Continued Multiple Sequence Alignment Babu Guda, Ph.D. Department of Genetics, Cell Biology & Anatomy Bioinformatics and
More informationCS224W: Social and Information Network Analysis
CS224W: Social and Information Network Analysis Reaction Paper Adithya Rao, Gautam Kumar Parai, Sandeep Sripada Keywords: Self-similar networks, fractality, scale invariance, modularity, Kronecker graphs.
More informationarxiv: v2 [q-bio.mn] 5 Sep 2016
arxiv:1609.00441v2 [q-bio.mn] 5 Sep 2016 CHARACTERIZING THE STRUCTURE OF COMPLEX PROTEIN-PROTEIN INTERACTION NETWORKS Allan A. Zea allan.zea@grupo-quantum.org Escuela de Matemática, Facultad de Ciencias,
More informationSelf-organized scale-free networks
Self-organized scale-free networks Kwangho Park and Ying-Cheng Lai Departments of Electrical Engineering, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona 85287, USA Nong Ye Department of Industrial Engineering,
More informationComputational methods for predicting protein-protein interactions
Computational methods for predicting protein-protein interactions Tomi Peltola T-61.6070 Special course in bioinformatics I 3.4.2008 Outline Biological background Protein-protein interactions Computational
More informationInteraction Network Analysis
CSI/BIF 5330 Interaction etwork Analsis Young-Rae Cho Associate Professor Department of Computer Science Balor Universit Biological etworks Definition Maps of biochemical reactions, interactions, regulations
More informationPhylogenetic Analysis of Molecular Interaction Networks 1
Phylogenetic Analysis of Molecular Interaction Networks 1 Mehmet Koyutürk Case Western Reserve University Electrical Engineering & Computer Science 1 Joint work with Sinan Erten, Xin Li, Gurkan Bebek,
More informationBiological networks CS449 BIOINFORMATICS
CS449 BIOINFORMATICS Biological networks Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe trying to produce bigger and better
More informationHaploid & diploid recombination and their evolutionary impact
Haploid & diploid recombination and their evolutionary impact W. Garrett Mitchener College of Charleston Mathematics Department MitchenerG@cofc.edu http://mitchenerg.people.cofc.edu Introduction The basis
More informationBiological Networks. Gavin Conant 163B ASRC
Biological Networks Gavin Conant 163B ASRC conantg@missouri.edu 882-2931 Types of Network Regulatory Protein-interaction Metabolic Signaling Co-expressing General principle Relationship between genes Gene/protein/enzyme
More informationQuantifying sequence similarity
Quantifying sequence similarity Bas E. Dutilh Systems Biology: Bioinformatic Data Analysis Utrecht University, February 16 th 2016 After this lecture, you can define homology, similarity, and identity
More informationComplex-Network Modelling and Inference
Complex-Network Modelling and Inference Lecture 12: Random Graphs: preferential-attachment models Matthew Roughan http://www.maths.adelaide.edu.au/matthew.roughan/notes/
More informationC3020 Molecular Evolution. Exercises #3: Phylogenetics
C3020 Molecular Evolution Exercises #3: Phylogenetics Consider the following sequences for five taxa 1-5 and the known outgroup O, which has the ancestral states (note that sequence 3 has changed from
More informationProtein function prediction via analysis of interactomes
Protein function prediction via analysis of interactomes Elena Nabieva Mona Singh Department of Computer Science & Lewis-Sigler Institute for Integrative Genomics January 22, 2008 1 Introduction Genome
More informationLecture 10: May 19, High-Throughput technologies for measuring proteinprotein
Analysis of Gene Expression Data Spring Semester, 2005 Lecture 10: May 19, 2005 Lecturer: Roded Sharan Scribe: Daniela Raijman and Igor Ulitsky 10.1 Protein Interaction Networks In the past we have discussed
More informationHIGH THROUGHPUT INTERACTION DATA REVEALS DEGREE CONSERVATION OF HUB PROTEINS
HIGH THROUGHPUT INTERACTION DATA REVEALS DEGREE CONSERVATION OF HUB PROTEINS A. FOX,1, D. TAYLOR 1, and D. K. SLONIM 1,2 1 Department of Computer Science, Tufts University, 161 College Avenue, Medford,
More informationTowards Detecting Protein Complexes from Protein Interaction Data
Towards Detecting Protein Complexes from Protein Interaction Data Pengjun Pei 1 and Aidong Zhang 1 Department of Computer Science and Engineering State University of New York at Buffalo Buffalo NY 14260,
More informationAn Efficient Algorithm for Protein-Protein Interaction Network Analysis to Discover Overlapping Functional Modules
An Efficient Algorithm for Protein-Protein Interaction Network Analysis to Discover Overlapping Functional Modules Ying Liu 1 Department of Computer Science, Mathematics and Science, College of Professional
More informationSession 5: Phylogenomics
Session 5: Phylogenomics B.- Phylogeny based orthology assignment REMINDER: Gene tree reconstruction is divided in three steps: homology search, multiple sequence alignment and model selection plus tree
More informationSocial Networks- Stanley Milgram (1967)
Complex Networs Networ is a structure of N nodes and 2M lins (or M edges) Called also graph in Mathematics Many examples of networs Internet: nodes represent computers lins the connecting cables Social
More informationGEOMETRIC EVOLUTIONARY DYNAMICS OF PROTEIN INTERACTION NETWORKS
GEOMETRIC EVOLUTIONARY DYNAMICS OF PROTEIN INTERACTION NETWORKS NATAŠA PRŽULJ, OLEKSII KUCHAIEV, ALEKSANDAR STEVANOVIĆ, and WAYNE HAYES Department of Computer Science, University of California, Irvine
More informationBLAST: Target frequencies and information content Dannie Durand
Computational Genomics and Molecular Biology, Fall 2016 1 BLAST: Target frequencies and information content Dannie Durand BLAST has two components: a fast heuristic for searching for similar sequences
More informationarxiv:cond-mat/ v1 [cond-mat.dis-nn] 4 May 2000
Topology of evolving networks: local events and universality arxiv:cond-mat/0005085v1 [cond-mat.dis-nn] 4 May 2000 Réka Albert and Albert-László Barabási Department of Physics, University of Notre-Dame,
More information56:198:582 Biological Networks Lecture 10
56:198:582 Biological Networks Lecture 10 Temporal Programs and the Global Structure The single-input module (SIM) network motif The network motifs we have studied so far all had a defined number of nodes.
More informationPredicting Protein Functions and Domain Interactions from Protein Interactions
Predicting Protein Functions and Domain Interactions from Protein Interactions Fengzhu Sun, PhD Center for Computational and Experimental Genomics University of Southern California Outline High-throughput
More informationPROTEOMICS. Is the intrinsic disorder of proteins the cause of the scale-free architecture of protein-protein interaction networks?
Is the intrinsic disorder of proteins the cause of the scale-free architecture of protein-protein interaction networks? Journal: Manuscript ID: Wiley - Manuscript type: Date Submitted by the Author: Complete
More informationAttack Strategies on Complex Networks
Attack Strategies on Complex Networks Lazaros K. Gallos 1, Reuven Cohen 2, Fredrik Liljeros 3, Panos Argyrakis 1, Armin Bunde 4, and Shlomo Havlin 5 1 Department of Physics, University of Thessaloniki,
More informationGraph Theory Approaches to Protein Interaction Data Analysis
Graph Theory Approaches to Protein Interaction Data Analysis Nataša Pržulj September 8, 2003 Contents 1 Introduction 2 1.1 Graph Theoretic Terminology................................. 3 1.2 Biological
More informationComparative Genomics II
Comparative Genomics II Advances in Bioinformatics and Genomics GEN 240B Jason Stajich May 19 Comparative Genomics II Slide 1/31 Outline Introduction Gene Families Pairwise Methods Phylogenetic Methods
More informationhsnim: Hyper Scalable Network Inference Machine for Scale-Free Protein-Protein Interaction Networks Inference
CS 229 Project Report (TR# MSB2010) Submitted 12/10/2010 hsnim: Hyper Scalable Network Inference Machine for Scale-Free Protein-Protein Interaction Networks Inference Muhammad Shoaib Sehgal Computer Science
More informationGraph Theory Properties of Cellular Networks
Page 1 of 45 Graph Theory Properties of Cellular Networks Baruch Barzel 1,2, Amitabh Sharma 1,2, Albert-László Barabási 1,2 1 Center for Complex Network Research, Department of Physics, Northeastern University,
More informationMAE 298, Lecture 4 April 9, Exploring network robustness
MAE 298, Lecture 4 April 9, 2006 Switzerland Germany Spain Italy Japan Netherlands Russian Federation Sweden UK USA Unknown Exploring network robustness What is a power law? (Also called a Pareto Distribution
More informationNetworks as a tool for Complex systems
Complex Networs Networ is a structure of N nodes and 2M lins (or M edges) Called also graph in Mathematics Many examples of networs Internet: nodes represent computers lins the connecting cables Social
More informationClustering and Network
Clustering and Network Jing-Dong Jackie Han jdhan@picb.ac.cn http://www.picb.ac.cn/~jdhan Copy Right: Jing-Dong Jackie Han What is clustering? A way of grouping together data samples that are similar in
More informationNetworks. Can (John) Bruce Keck Founda7on Biotechnology Lab Bioinforma7cs Resource
Networks Can (John) Bruce Keck Founda7on Biotechnology Lab Bioinforma7cs Resource Networks in biology Protein-Protein Interaction Network of Yeast Transcriptional regulatory network of E.coli Experimental
More informationMajor questions of evolutionary genetics. Experimental tools of evolutionary genetics. Theoretical population genetics.
Evolutionary Genetics (for Encyclopedia of Biodiversity) Sergey Gavrilets Departments of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology and Mathematics, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996-6 USA Evolutionary
More informationAnalysis of Complex Systems
Analysis of Complex Systems Lecture 1: Introduction Marcus Kaiser m.kaiser@ncl.ac.uk www.dynamic-connectome.org Preliminaries - 1 Lecturers Dr Marcus Kaiser, m.kaiser@ncl.ac.uk Practicals Frances Hutchings
More informationPredicting the Binding Patterns of Hub Proteins: A Study Using Yeast Protein Interaction Networks
: A Study Using Yeast Protein Interaction Networks Carson M. Andorf 1, Vasant Honavar 1,2, Taner Z. Sen 2,3,4 * 1 Department of Computer Science, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, United States of America,
More informationMeasuring the shape of degree distributions
Measuring the shape of degree distributions Dr Jennifer Badham Visiting Fellow SEIT, UNSW Canberra research@criticalconnections.com.au Overview Context What does shape mean for degree distribution Why
More informationConnectivity and expression in protein networks: Proteins in a complex are uniformly expressed
Connectivity and expression in protein networks: Proteins in a complex are uniformly expressed Shai Carmi, 1 Erez Y. Levanon, 2 Shlomo Havlin, 1 and Eli Eisenberg 3 1 Minerva Center and Department of Physics,
More informationAnalysis of Biological Networks: Network Integration
Analysis of Biological Networks: Network Integration Lecturer: Roded Sharan Scribe: Yael Silberberg and Renana Miller Lecture 10. May 27, 2009 Introduction The integration of different types of networks
More informationComparative Network Analysis
Comparative Network Analysis BMI/CS 776 www.biostat.wisc.edu/bmi776/ Spring 2016 Anthony Gitter gitter@biostat.wisc.edu These slides, excluding third-party material, are licensed under CC BY-NC 4.0 by
More informationComputational approaches for functional genomics
Computational approaches for functional genomics Kalin Vetsigian October 31, 2001 The rapidly increasing number of completely sequenced genomes have stimulated the development of new methods for finding
More informationSYSTEMS BIOLOGY 1: NETWORKS
SYSTEMS BIOLOGY 1: NETWORKS SYSTEMS BIOLOGY Starting around 2000 a number of biologists started adopting the term systems biology for an approach to biology that emphasized the systems-character of biology:
More informationRevisiting Date and Party Hubs: Novel Approaches to Role Assignment in Protein Interaction Networks
Revisiting Date and Party Hubs: Novel Approaches to Role Assignment in Protein Interaction Networks Sumeet Agarwal,2, Charlotte M. Deane 3,4, Mason A. Porter 5,6, Nick S. Jones 2,4,6 * Systems Biology
More informationTransport in complex networks is a problem of much interest
Scaling theory of transport in complex biological networks Lazaros K. Gallos*, Chaoming Song*, Shlomo Havlin, and Hernán A. Makse* *Levich Institute and Physics Department, City College of New York, New
More informationNETWORK BIOLOGY: UNDERSTANDING THE CELL S FUNCTIONAL ORGANIZATION
NETWORK BIOLOGY: UNDERSTANDING THE CELL S FUNCTIONAL ORGANIZATION Albert-László Barabási* & Zoltán N. Oltvai A key aim of postgenomic biomedical research is to systematically catalogue all molecules and
More informationSupplemental Material
Supplemental Material Article title: Construction and comparison of gene co expression networks shows complex plant immune responses Author names and affiliation: Luis Guillermo Leal 1*, Email: lgleala@unal.edu.co
More informationTiffany Samaroo MB&B 452a December 8, Take Home Final. Topic 1
Tiffany Samaroo MB&B 452a December 8, 2003 Take Home Final Topic 1 Prior to 1970, protein and DNA sequence alignment was limited to visual comparison. This was a very tedious process; even proteins with
More informationSequence Alignment: A General Overview. COMP Fall 2010 Luay Nakhleh, Rice University
Sequence Alignment: A General Overview COMP 571 - Fall 2010 Luay Nakhleh, Rice University Life through Evolution All living organisms are related to each other through evolution This means: any pair of
More informationNature Genetics: doi: /ng Supplementary Figure 1. Icm/Dot secretion system region I in 41 Legionella species.
Supplementary Figure 1 Icm/Dot secretion system region I in 41 Legionella species. Homologs of the effector-coding gene lega15 (orange) were found within Icm/Dot region I in 13 Legionella species. In four
More informationUSING BLAST TO IDENTIFY PROTEINS THAT ARE EVOLUTIONARILY RELATED ACROSS SPECIES
USING BLAST TO IDENTIFY PROTEINS THAT ARE EVOLUTIONARILY RELATED ACROSS SPECIES HOW CAN BIOINFORMATICS BE USED AS A TOOL TO DETERMINE EVOLUTIONARY RELATIONSHPS AND TO BETTER UNDERSTAND PROTEIN HERITAGE?
More informationBIOINFORMATICS: An Introduction
BIOINFORMATICS: An Introduction What is Bioinformatics? The term was first coined in 1988 by Dr. Hwa Lim The original definition was : a collective term for data compilation, organisation, analysis and
More informationSupplementary Information
Supplementary Information Supplementary Figure 1. Schematic pipeline for single-cell genome assembly, cleaning and annotation. a. The assembly process was optimized to account for multiple cells putatively
More information