Exploration of the omics evidence landscape: Adding qualitative labels to predicted protein-protein interactions

1Citations
Citations of this article
33Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Background: In the post-genomic era various functional genomics, proteomics and computational techniques have been developed to elucidate the protein interaction network. While some of these techniques are specific for a certain type of interaction, most predict a mixture of interactions. Qualitative labels are essential for the molecular biologist to experimentally verify predicted interactions. Results: Of the individual protein-protein interaction prediction methods, some can predict physical interactions without producing other types of interactions. None of the methods can specifically predict metabolic interactions. We have constructed an 'omics evidence landscape' that combines all sources of evidence for protein interactions from various types of omics data for Saccharomyces cerevisiae. We explore this evidence landscape to identify areas with either only metabolic or only physical interactions, allowing us to specifically predict the nature of new interactions in these areas. We combine the datasets in ways that examine the whole evidence landscape and not only the highest scoring protein pairs in both datasets and find specific predictions. Conclusion: The combination of evidence types in the form of the evidence landscape allows for qualitative labels to be inferred and placed on the predicted protein interaction network of S. cerevisiae. These qualitative labels will help in the biological interpretation of gene networks and will direct experimental verification of the predicted interactions. © 2007 van Noort et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

van Noort, V., Snel, B., & Huynen, M. A. (2007). Exploration of the omics evidence landscape: Adding qualitative labels to predicted protein-protein interactions. Genome Biology, 8(9). https://doi.org/10.1186/gb-2007-8-9-r197

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free