Defining hierarchical protein interaction networks from spectral analysis of bacterial proteomes

  1. Mark A Zaydman  Is a corresponding author
  2. Alexander A Little
  3. Fidel Haro
  4. Valeryia Aksianiuk
  5. William J Buchser
  6. Aaron DiAntonio
  7. Jeffrey I Gordon
  8. Jeffrey Milbrandt
  9. Arjun S Raman  Is a corresponding author
  1. Washington University in St. Louis, United States
  2. University of Chicago, United States

Abstract

Cellular behaviors emerge from layers of molecular interactions: proteins interact to form complexes, pathways, and phenotypes. We show that hierarchical networks of protein interactions can be defined from the statistical pattern of proteome variation measured across thousands of diverse bacteria and that these networks reflect the emergence of complex bacterial phenotypes. Our results are validated through gene-set enrichment analysis and comparison to existing experimentally-derived databases. We demonstrate the biological utility of our approach by creating a model of motility in Pseudomonas aeruginosa and using it to identify a protein that affects pilus-mediated motility. Our method, SCALES (Spectral Correlation Analysis of Layered Evolutionary Signals), may be useful for interrogating genotype-phenotype relationships in bacteria.

Data availability

All data relevant to this manuscript can be downloaded, in Table format, at www.github.com/arjunsraman/Zaydman_et_al. All tables are available for download in .zip format. All code used for analyses contained within the manuscript can also be found within the same github repository; please refer to Readme.m and Supplemental_Code_9_23_2020.m for relevant Matlab scripts and to reproduce results.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Mark A Zaydman

    Department of Pathology, Washington University in St. Louis, St Louis, United States
    For correspondence
    zaydmanm@wustl.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Alexander A Little

    Duchossois Family Institute, University of Chicago, Chicago, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Fidel Haro

    Duchossois Family Institute, University of Chicago, Chicago, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Valeryia Aksianiuk

    Duchossois Family Institute, University of Chicago, Chicago, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. William J Buchser

    Department of Genetics, Washington University in St. Louis, St Louis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Aaron DiAntonio

    Department of Developmental Biology, Washington University in St. Louis, St Louis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-7262-0968
  7. Jeffrey I Gordon

    Department of Pathology, Washington University in St. Louis, St Louis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-8304-3548
  8. Jeffrey Milbrandt

    Department of Genetics, Washington University in St. Louis, St Louis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Arjun S Raman

    Duchossois Family Institute, University of Chicago, Chicago, United States
    For correspondence
    araman@bsd.uchicago.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-0070-1953

Funding

No external funding was received for this work.

Copyright

© 2022, Zaydman et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 1,814
    views
  • 290
    downloads
  • 4
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Mark A Zaydman
  2. Alexander A Little
  3. Fidel Haro
  4. Valeryia Aksianiuk
  5. William J Buchser
  6. Aaron DiAntonio
  7. Jeffrey I Gordon
  8. Jeffrey Milbrandt
  9. Arjun S Raman
(2022)
Defining hierarchical protein interaction networks from spectral analysis of bacterial proteomes
eLife 11:e74104.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.74104

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.74104

Further reading

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Computational and Systems Biology
    Shinichi Kawaguchi, Xin Xu ... Toshie Kai
    Research Article

    Protein–protein interactions are fundamental to understanding the molecular functions and regulation of proteins. Despite the availability of extensive databases, many interactions remain uncharacterized due to the labor-intensive nature of experimental validation. In this study, we utilized the AlphaFold2 program to predict interactions among proteins localized in the nuage, a germline-specific non-membrane organelle essential for piRNA biogenesis in Drosophila. We screened 20 nuage proteins for 1:1 interactions and predicted dimer structures. Among these, five represented novel interaction candidates. Three pairs, including Spn-E_Squ, were verified by co-immunoprecipitation. Disruption of the salt bridges at the Spn-E_Squ interface confirmed their functional importance, underscoring the predictive model’s accuracy. We extended our analysis to include interactions between three representative nuage components—Vas, Squ, and Tej—and approximately 430 oogenesis-related proteins. Co-immunoprecipitation verified interactions for three pairs: Mei-W68_Squ, CSN3_Squ, and Pka-C1_Tej. Furthermore, we screened the majority of Drosophila proteins (~12,000) for potential interaction with the Piwi protein, a central player in the piRNA pathway, identifying 164 pairs as potential binding partners. This in silico approach not only efficiently identifies potential interaction partners but also significantly bridges the gap by facilitating the integration of bioinformatics and experimental biology.

    1. Computational and Systems Biology
    2. Neuroscience
    Brian DePasquale, Carlos D Brody, Jonathan W Pillow
    Research Article Updated

    Accumulating evidence to make decisions is a core cognitive function. Previous studies have tended to estimate accumulation using either neural or behavioral data alone. Here, we develop a unified framework for modeling stimulus-driven behavior and multi-neuron activity simultaneously. We applied our method to choices and neural recordings from three rat brain regions—the posterior parietal cortex (PPC), the frontal orienting fields (FOF), and the anterior-dorsal striatum (ADS)—while subjects performed a pulse-based accumulation task. Each region was best described by a distinct accumulation model, which all differed from the model that best described the animal’s choices. FOF activity was consistent with an accumulator where early evidence was favored while the ADS reflected near perfect accumulation. Neural responses within an accumulation framework unveiled a distinct association between each brain region and choice. Choices were better predicted from all regions using a comprehensive, accumulation-based framework and different brain regions were found to differentially reflect choice-related accumulation signals: FOF and ADS both reflected choice but ADS showed more instances of decision vacillation. Previous studies relating neural data to behaviorally inferred accumulation dynamics have implicitly assumed that individual brain regions reflect the whole-animal level accumulator. Our results suggest that different brain regions represent accumulated evidence in dramatically different ways and that accumulation at the whole-animal level may be constructed from a variety of neural-level accumulators.