Publications (373) View all
-
Article: Predicting the binding patterns of hub proteins: a study using yeast protein interaction networks.
Carson M Andorf, Vasant Honavar, Taner Z Sen[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Protein-protein interactions are critical to elucidating the role played by individual proteins in important biological pathways. Of particular interest are hub proteins that can interact with large numbers of partners and often play essential roles in cellular control. Depending on the number of binding sites, protein hubs can be classified at a structural level as singlish-interface hubs (SIH) with one or two binding sites, or multiple-interface hubs (MIH) with three or more binding sites. In terms of kinetics, hub proteins can be classified as date hubs (i.e., interact with different partners at different times or locations) or party hubs (i.e., simultaneously interact with multiple partners). Our approach works in 3 phases: Phase I classifies if a protein is likely to bind with another protein. Phase II determines if a protein-binding (PB) protein is a hub. Phase III classifies PB proteins as singlish-interface versus multiple-interface hubs and date versus party hubs. At each stage, we use sequence-based predictors trained using several standard machine learning techniques. Our method is able to predict whether a protein is a protein-binding protein with an accuracy of 94% and a correlation coefficient of 0.87; identify hubs from non-hubs with 100% accuracy for 30% of the data; distinguish date hubs/party hubs with 69% accuracy and area under ROC curve of 0.68; and SIH/MIH with 89% accuracy and area under ROC curve of 0.84. Because our method is based on sequence information alone, it can be used even in settings where reliable protein-protein interaction data or structures of protein-protein complexes are unavailable to obtain useful insights into the functional and evolutionary characteristics of proteins and their interactions. We provide a web server for our three-phase approach: http://hybsvm.gdcb.iastate.edu.PLoS ONE 01/2013; 8(2):e56833. · 4.09 Impact Factor -
SourceAvailable from: Vasant Honavar
Article: B-cell ligand processing pathways detected by large-scale comparative analysis.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The initiation of B-cell ligand recognition is a critical step for the generation of an immune response against foreign bodies. We sought to identify the biochemical pathways involved in the B-cell ligand recognition cascade and sets of ligands that trigger similar immunological responses. We utilized several comparative approaches to analyze the gene coexpression networks generated from a set of microarray experiments spanning 33 different ligands. First, we compared the degree distributions of the generated networks. Second, we utilized a pairwise network alignment algorithm, BiNA, to align the networks based on the hubs in the networks. Third, we aligned the networks based on a set of KEGG pathways. We summarized our results by constructing a consensus hierarchy of pathways that are involved in B cell ligand recognition. The resulting pathways were further validated through literature for their common physiological responses. Collectively, the results based on our comparative analyses of degree distributions, alignment of hubs, and alignment based on KEGG pathways provide a basis for molecular characterization of the immune response states of B-cells and demonstrate the power of comparative approaches (e.g., gene coexpression network alignment algorithms) in elucidating biochemical pathways involved in complex signaling events in cells.Genomics Proteomics & Bioinformatics 06/2012; 10(3):142-52. -
SourceAvailable from: Rasna Walia
Article: Protein-RNA interface residue prediction using machine learning: an assessment of the state of the art.
Rasna R Walia, Cornelia Caragea, Benjamin A Lewis, Fadi G Towfic, Michael Terribilini, Yasser El-Manzalawy, Drena Dobbs, Vasant Honavar[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: RNA molecules play diverse functional and structural roles in cells. They function as messengers for transferring genetic information from DNA to proteins, as the primary genetic material in many viruses, as catalysts (ribozymes) important for protein synthesis and RNA processing, and as essential and ubiquitous regulators of gene expression in living organisms. Many of these functions depend on precisely orchestrated interactions between RNA molecules and specific proteins in cells. Understanding the molecular mechanisms by which proteins recognize and bind RNA is essential for comprehending the functional implications of these interactions, but the recognition 'code' that mediates interactions between proteins and RNA is not yet understood. Success in deciphering this code would dramatically impact the development of new therapeutic strategies for intervening in devastating diseases such as AIDS and cancer. Because of the high cost of experimental determination of protein-RNA interfaces, there is an increasing reliance on statistical machine learning methods for training predictors of RNA-binding residues in proteins. However, because of differences in the choice of datasets, performance measures, and data representations used, it has been difficult to obtain an accurate assessment of the current state of the art in protein-RNA interface prediction. RESULTS: We provide a review of published approaches for predicting RNA-binding residues in proteins and a systematic comparison and critical assessment of protein-RNA interface residue predictors trained using these approaches on three carefully curated non-redundant datasets. We directly compare two widely used machine learning algorithms (Naive Bayes (NB) and Support Vector Machine (SVM)) using three different data representations in which features are encoded using either sequence- or structure-based windows. Our results show that (i) Sequence-based classifiers that use a position-specific scoring matrix (PSSM)-based representation (PSSMSeq) outperform those that use an amino acid identity based representation (IDSeq) or a smoothed PSSM (SmoPSSMSeq); (ii) Structure-based classifiers that use smoothed PSSM representation (SmoPSSMStr) outperform those that use PSSM (PSSMStr) as well as sequence identity based representation (IDStr). PSSMSeq classifiers, when tested on an independent test set of 44 proteins, achieve performance that is comparable to that of three state-of-the-art structure-based predictors (including those that exploit geometric features) in terms of Matthews Correlation Coefficient (MCC), although the structure-based methods achieve substantially higher Specificity (albeit at the expense of Sensitivity) compared to sequence-based methods. We also find that the expected performance of the classifiers on a residue level can be markedly different from that on a protein level. Our experiments show that the classifiers trained on three different non-redundant protein-RNA interface datasets achieve comparable cross-validation performance. However, we find that the results are significantly affected by differences in the distance threshold used to define interface residues. CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrate that protein-RNA interface residue predictors that use a PSSM-based encoding of sequence windows outperform classifiers that use other encodings of sequence windows. While structure-based methods that exploit geometric features can yield significant increases in the Specificity of protein-RNA interface residue predictions, such increases are offset by decreases in Sensitivity. These results underscore the importance of comparing alternative methods using rigorous statistical procedures, multiple performance measures, and datasets that are constructed based on several alternative definitions of interface residues and redundancy cutoffs as well as including evaluations on independent test sets into the comparisons.BMC Bioinformatics 05/2012; 13(1):89. · 2.75 Impact Factor -
SourceAvailable from: Vasant Honavar
Article: Predicting protein-protein interface residues using local surface structural similarity.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Identification of the residues in protein-protein interaction sites has a significant impact in problems such as drug discovery. Motivated by the observation that the set of interface residues of a protein tend to be conserved even among remote structural homologs, we introduce PrISE, a family of local structural similarity-based computational methods for predicting protein-protein interface residues. We present a novel representation of the surface residues of a protein in the form of structural elements. Each structural element consists of a central residue and its surface neighbors. The PrISE family of interface prediction methods uses a representation of structural elements that captures the atomic composition and accessible surface area of the residues that make up each structural element. Each of the members of the PrISE methods identifies for each structural element in the query protein, a collection of similar structural elements in its repository of structural elements and weights them according to their similarity with the structural element of the query protein. PrISEL relies on the similarity between structural elements (i.e. local structural similarity). PrISEG relies on the similarity between protein surfaces (i.e. general structural similarity). PrISEC, combines local structural similarity and general structural similarity to predict interface residues. These predictors label the central residue of a structural element in a query protein as an interface residue if a weighted majority of the structural elements that are similar to it are interface residues, and as a non-interface residue otherwise. The results of our experiments using three representative benchmark datasets show that the PrISEC outperforms PrISEL and PrISEG; and that PrISEC is highly competitive with state-of-the-art structure-based methods for predicting protein-protein interface residues. Our comparison of PrISEC with PredUs, a recently developed method for predicting interface residues of a query protein based on the known interface residues of its (global) structural homologs, shows that performance superior or comparable to that of PredUs can be obtained using only local surface structural similarity. PrISEC is available as a Web server at http://prise.cs.iastate.edu/ Local surface structural similarity based methods offer a simple, efficient, and effective approach to predict protein-protein interface residues.BMC Bioinformatics 03/2012; 13:41. · 2.75 Impact Factor -
Article: B-Cell Ligand Processing Pathways Detected by Large-Scale Gene Expression Analysis.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The initiation of B-cell ligand recognition is a critical step for the generation of an immune response against foreign bodies. We sought to identify the biochemical pathways involved in the B-cell ligand recognition cascade and sets of ligands that trigger similar immunological responses. We utilized several comparative approaches to analyze the gene coexpression networks generated from a set of microarray experiments spanning 33 different ligands. First, we compared the degree distributions of the generated networks. Second, we utilized a pairwise network alignment algorithm, BiNA, to align the networks based on the hubs in the networks. Third, we aligned the networks based on a set of KEGG pathways. We summarized our results by constructing a consensus hierarchy of pathways that are involved in B cell ligand recognition. The resulting pathways were further validated through literature for their common physiological responses. Collectively, the results based on our comparative analyses of degree distributions, alignment of hubs, and alignment based on KEGG pathways provide a basis for molecular characterization of the immune response states of B-cells and demonstrate the power of comparative approaches (e.g., gene coexpression network alignment algorithms) in elucidating biochemical pathways involved in complex signaling events in cells.Genomics Proteomics & Bioinformatics 01/2012; 10:142-152.
