1 / 57

Mass-action equilibrium and non-specific interactions in protein interaction networks

Mass-action equilibrium and non-specific interactions in protein interaction networks. Sergei Maslov Brookhaven National Laboratory. Living cells contain crowded and diverse molecular environments. Proteins constitute ~ 30% of E. coli and ~5% of yeast cytoplasm by weight

krystalm
Download Presentation

Mass-action equilibrium and non-specific interactions in protein interaction networks

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Mass-action equilibrium and non-specific interactions in protein interaction networks Sergei Maslov Brookhaven National Laboratory

  2. Living cells contain crowded and diverse molecular environments • Proteins constitute ~30% of E. coli and ~5% of yeast cytoplasm by weight • ~2000 protein types are • co-expressed • co-localized in yeast cytoplasm

  3. Map of reproducible (>2 publications) protein-protein interactions in yeast If that’s not difficult enough:they are all interconnected • >80% of proteins are all connected in one giant cluster of PPI network • Small-world effect median network distance – 6 steps

  4. Why small-world property might cause problems? • Interconnected binding networkscould indiscriminatelyspread perturbations • Systematic changes in expression: large changes in concentrations of a small number of proteins SM, I. Ispolatov, PNAS and NJP (2007) • Noise: small changes in concentrations of a large number of proteins K.-K. Yan, D. Walker, SM, PRL (2008) • How individual pathways can be turned on and off without upsetting the whole system ?

  5. What about non-specific interactions? • Proteins form transient non-specific bonds with random, non-functional partners • For an organism to function specific interactions between proteins must dominate over non-specific ones: • How much stronger ~N specific interactions between N proteins need to be to overcome ~N2 non-specific interactions? • What limits it imposes on the number of protein typesand their concentrations? J. Zhang, SM, E. Shakhnovich, Molecular Systems Biology (2008)

  6. My “spherical cow” assumptions • Protein concentrations Ci of all yeast proteins (under the rich growth medium conditions) and subcellular localizations are experimentally known (group of Weissman @ UCSF) • Consider only reproducible independently confirmed protein-protein interactions for non-catalytic binding (kinase-substrate pairs~5%) • The network: ~4000 heterodimers and ~100multi-protein complexes (we assume no cooperative binding in complexes) connecting ~1700 proteins • Know the relevant average of dissociation constants Kij~10nM. Turned out their distribution around this average DOES NOT MATTER MUCH!!! • Use “evolutionary motivated” binding strength: Kij=max(Ci, Cj)/const, which is sufficient to bind considerable fraction of twoproteins in a heterodimer

  7. Law of Mass Action (LMA) • dDAB /dt= r (on)AB FA FB– r (off)AB DAB • In theequilibrium:DAB=FA FB /KAB;CA= FA+DAB ; CB= FB +DABor FA = CA /(1+ FB /KAB) and FB = CB /(1+ FA /KAB) • In a network:A system of ~2000 nonlinear equationsfor Fi that can be solved only numerically

  8. Propagation of perturbations: the in silico study • Calculate the unperturbed (wildtype) LMA equilibrium • Simulate atwofold increaseof the concentration CA 2CA of just one type of proteinand recalculate equilibriumfree concentrations Fiof all other proteins • Look forcascading perturbations: A B  C  Dwith sign-alternation: A ( up), B ( down), C ( up), D ( down)

  9. S. Maslov, I. Ispolatov, PNAS, (2007); Cascades of perturbations exponentially decay (and signalternate) with network distance

  10. Mapping to resistor network • Conductivities ij– heterodimer concentrations Dij • Losses to the ground iG – free (unbound) concentrations Fi • Perturbations spread along linear chains loosely conducting to neighbors and ground • Mapping is exact for bi-partite networks  odd-length loops dampen perturbations S.Maslov, K. Sneppen, I. Ispolatov, New J. Phys, (2007)

  11. Perturbations – large changes of few proteins • Fluctuations – small changes of many proteins

  12. Two types of fluctuations in equilibrium concentrations • Driven fluctuations: changes in Dijdriven by stochastic variations in total concentrations Ci(random protein production/degradation) • Spontaneous fluctuations: stochastic changes in Dijat fixed Ci – described by equlibrium thermodynamics • Both types propagate through network <Dij2>network <Dij2>isolated

  13. Image by Cell Signaling Technology, Inc: www.cellsignal.com Mitochondrial control of apoptosis

  14. What limits do non-specific interactions impose on robust functioning of protein networks?J. Zhang, S. Maslov, E. Shakhnovich, MSB (2008) see talk on 8:48 AM in Room 411 (V39)

  15. Competition between specific and nonspecific interactions • The effect of non-specific interactions grows with genome diversity m -- the number of co-expressed & co-localized proteins • Compare 3 equilibrium concentrations of a typical protein: • free (monomer) • specific heterodimer, • all non-specific heterodimers • Need to know: • protein concentrations: Ci • specific and non-specific dissociation constants:K(s)=K0exp(E(s)/kT), K(ns)=K0exp(E(ns)/kT

  16. Ci Kij log(C/K0) “Evolutionary motivated”Kij=max(Ci, Cj)/10 1 nM 1 M

  17. Use false-positives in noisy high-throughput data! 18mM log K(ns) 1M How to estimate E(ns)? • We estimate the median non-specific energy to beE(ns)=-4kT 2.5kT or K(ns)=18mM • Still thousands of pairs are below the 1M (-14kT) detection thresholdof Y2H which is 3.6 std. dev. away J. Zhang, SM, E. Shakhnovich, Molecular Systems Biology (2008)

  18. mitochondria Phase diagram in yeast nucleus <C> • Evolution pushes the number of protein types mup for higher functional complexity, while keeping the concentration <C> is as low as possible to reduce the waste due to non-specific interactions • Still, on average proteins in yeast cytoplasm spend 20% of timebound in non-specific complexes cytoplasm J. Zhang, SM, E. Shakhnovich, Molecular Systems Biology (2008)

  19. Collaborators and support • Koon-Kiu Yan, Dylan Walker, Tin Yau Pang (BNL/Stony Brook) • IaroslavIspolatov (Ariadne Genomics/BNL) • Kim Sneppen (Center for Models of Life, Niels Bohr Institute, Denmark) • Eugene Shakhnovich, Jingshan Zhang (Harvard) • DOE DMS DE-AC02-98CH10886 • NIH/NIGMS R01 GM068954

  20. Thank you!

  21. Conclusions • Time to go beyond topology of PPI networks! • Interconnected networks present a challenge for robustness: • Perturbations and noise • Non-specific interactions • We were the first to attempt quantifying these effects on genome-wide scale • Estimates will get better as we get better data on kinetic & equilibrium constants

  22. Collaborators, papers, and support • Koon-Kiu Yan, Dylan Walker, Tin Yau Pang (BNL/Stony Brook) • Iaroslav Ispolatov (Ariadne Genomics/BNL) • Kim Sneppen (Center for Models of Life, Niels Bohr Institute, Denmark) • Eugene Shakhnovich, Jingshan Zhang (Harvard) • DOE Division of Material Science, DE-AC02-98CH10886 • NIH/NIGMS, R01 GM068954 Propagation of large concentration changes in reversible protein binding networks, S. Maslov, I. Ispolatov, PNAS 104:13655 (2007); Constraints imposed by non-functional protein–protein interactions on gene expression and proteome size, J. Zhang, S. Maslov, E. Shakhnovich, Molecular Systems Biology 4:210 (2008); Fluctuations in Mass-Action Equilibrium of Protein Binding NetworksK-K. Yan, D. Walker, S. Maslov, Phys Rev. Lett., 101, 268102 (2008); Spreading out of perturbations in reversible reaction networksS. Maslov, K. Sneppen, I. Ispolatov, New Journal of Physics 9: 273 (2007); Topological and dynamical properties of protein interaction networks. S. Maslov, book chapter in the " Protein-protein interactions and networks: Identification, Analysis and Prediction“, Springer-Verlag (2008);

  23. Collective Effects Amplify Spontaneous Noise Collective effects significantly amplify (up to a factor of 20) spontaneous noise Is there an upper bound to this amplification?

  24. Stochastic fluctuations in D*ij at fixed Ci Free energy G, for a given occupation state Here is not independent but related to via

  25. What limits do non-specific interactions impose on robust functioning of protein networks?J. Zhang, S. Maslov, E. Shakhnovich, Molecular Systems Biology (2008)

  26. Competition between specific and nonspecific interactions • The effect of non-specific interactions grows with m -- the number of co-expressed & co-localized proteins • Assume a protein is biologically active when bound to its uniquespecific interaction partner • Compare 3 equilibrium concentrations:free (monomer),specific dimer,all non-specific dimers • Need to know the average and distributions of: • protein concentrations: C • specific and non-specific dissociation constants:K(s)=K0exp(E(s)/kT), K(ns)=K0exp(E(ns)/kT) • Dimensionless parameters: log(C/K0),E(s)/kT, E(ns)/kT

  27. C m Limits on parameters • For specific dimers to dominate over monomers: C  K(s)= =K0exp(E(s)/kT) • For specific interactions to dominate over non-specific: C/K(s) mC/K(ns)or mexp[(E(ns)-E(s))/kT]

  28. Intra-cellular noise • Noise typically means fluctuations in total concentrations Ci (e.g. cell-to-cell variability measured for of all yeast proteins by Weissman lab @ UCSF) • Needs to be converted into noise in biologically relevantdimer (Dij) or monomer (Fi) concentrations • Two types of noise: intrinsic (uncorrelated) and extrinsic (correlated) (M. Elowitz, U. Alon, et. al. (2005)) • Intrinsic noise could be amplified by the conversion (sometimes as much as 30 times!) • Extrinsic noise partially cancels each other • Essential proteins seem to be more protected from noiseand perturbations PNAS (2007), Phys. Rev. Lett. (2008)

  29. Going beyond topology • We already know a lot about topology of complex networks (scale-free, small-world, clustering, etc) • Network is just a backbone for complex dynamical processes • Time to put numbers on nodes/edges and study these processes • For binding networks – governed by law of mass action

  30. D The total number of cascades is still significant • The fraction of significantly (> noise level ~ 20%) affected proteins at distance D quickly decays --> exp(-  D) • The total number of neighbors at distance D quickly rises --> exp( D) • The number of affected proteins at distance D slowly decays--> exp(- (- )D) SM, I. Ispolatov, PNAS (2007)

  31. Free concentrations: Fi Bound concentrations: Dij Spearman rank correlation: 0.89 Pearson linear correlation: 0.98 Spearman rank correlation: 0.89 Pearson linear correlation: 0.997 Robustness with respect to assignment of Kij SM, I. Ispolatov, PNAS, 104,13655-13660 (2007)

  32. OK, protein binding networksare robust, but can cascading changes be used to send signals?

  33. Robustness: Cascades of perturbations on average exponentially decay S.Maslov, K. Sneppen, I. Ispolatov, NJP (2007)

  34. More robust Less robust How robust is the mass-action equilibrium against perturbations?

  35. HHT1 SM, I. Ispolatov, PNAS, 104,13655-13660 (2007)

  36. SM, I. Ispolatov, PNAS, 104,13655-13660 (2007)

  37. SM, I. Ispolatov, PNAS, 104,13655-13660 (2007)

  38. Perturbations propagate along dimers with large concentrations • They cascade down theconcentration gradient and thus directional • Free concentrations of intermediate proteins are low SM, I. Ispolatov, PNAS, 104,13655-13660 (2007)

  39. Non-specific phase diagram

  40. Three states of a protein • Each protein i has 3 possible states: Ci=[ii’]+[i]+[iR] • Concentrations are related by the Law of Mass Action • Compare the 3 concentrations: [ii’] should dominate

  41. Non-specific binding energies

  42. Model of nonspecific interactions • Assume for nonspecific interactions scales with sum of surface hydrophobicities of two proteins • Distribution of fraction of hydrophobicAas on protein’s surface • Distribution of is Gaussian (proportional to hydrophobicity) E. J. Deeds, O. Ashenberg, and E. I. Shakhnovich, PNAS 103, 311 (2006)

  43. Parameters of non-specific interactions out of high-throughput Y2H experiments • Detection threshold Kd* of Kijin Yeast 2-Hybrid experiments J. Estojak, R. Brent and E. A. Golemis. Mol. Cell. Biol.15, 5820 (1995) • Interaction detected in Y2H if < E* • If  pairwise interactions are detected among N protein types

  44. Chemical potential description of non-specific interactions between proteins

  45. Chemical potential of the system • More hydrophobic surface  more likely to bind nonspecific. Probability to be monomeric follows the Fermi-Dirac distribution • [i]>[iR] for Ei >  , and vise versa • Find the chemical potential by solving

More Related