- Open Access
Comparative analysis and assessment of M. tuberculosis H37Rv protein-protein interaction datasets
© Zhou and Wong; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2011
- Published: 30 November 2011
M. tuberculosis is a formidable bacterial pathogen. There is thus an increasing demand on understanding the function and relationship of proteins in various strains of M. tuberculosis. Protein-protein interactions (PPIs) data are crucial for this kind of knowledge. However, the quality of the main available M. tuberculosis PPI datasets is unclear. This hampers the effectiveness of research works that rely on these PPI datasets. Here, we analyze the two main available M. tuberculosis H37Rv PPI datasets. The first dataset is the high-throughput B2H PPI dataset from Wang et al’s recent paper in Journal of Proteome Research. The second dataset is from STRING database, version 8.3, comprising entirely of H37Rv PPIs predicted using various methods. We find that these two datasets have a surprisingly low level of agreement. We postulate the following causes for this low level of agreement: (i) the H37Rv B2H PPI dataset is of low quality; (ii) the H37Rv STRING PPI dataset is of low quality; and/or (iii) the H37Rv STRING PPIs are predictions of other forms of functional associations rather than direct physical interactions.
To test the quality of these two datasets, we evaluate them based on correlated gene expression profiles, coherent informative GO term annotations, and conservation in other organisms. We observe a significantly greater portion of PPIs in the H37Rv STRING PPI dataset (with score ≥ 770) having correlated gene expression profiles and coherent informative GO term annotations in both interaction partners than that in the H37Rv B2H PPI dataset. Predicted H37Rv interologs derived from non-M. tuberculosis experimental PPIs are much more similar to the H37Rv STRING functional associations dataset (with score ≥ 770) than the H37Rv B2H PPI dataset. H37Rv predicted physical interologs from IntAct also show extremely low similarity with the H37Rv B2H PPI dataset; and this similarity level is much lower than that between the S. aureus MRSA252 predicted physical interologs from IntAct and S. aureus MRSA252 pull-down PPIs. Comparative analysis with several representative two-hybrid PPI datasets in other species further confirms that the H37Rv B2H PPI dataset is of low quality. Next, to test the possibility that the H37Rv STRING PPIs are not purely direct physical interactions, we compare M. tuberculosis H37Rv protein pairs that catalyze adjacent steps in enzymatic reactions to B2H PPIs and predicted PPIs in STRING, which shows it has much lower similarities with the B2H PPIs than with STRING PPIs. This result strongly suggests that the H37Rv STRING PPIs more likely correspond to indirect relationships between protein pairs than to B2H PPIs. For more precise support, we turn to S. cerevisiae for its comprehensively studied interactome. We compare S. cerevisiae predicted PPIs in STRING to three independent protein relationship datasets which respectively comprise PPIs reported in Y2H assays, protein pairs reported to be in the same protein complexes, and protein pairs that catalyze successive reaction steps in enzymatic reactions. Our analysis reveals that S. cerevisiae predicted STRING PPIs have much higher similarity to the latter two types of protein pairs than to two-hybrid PPIs. As H37Rv STRING PPIs are predicted using similar methods as S. cerevisiae predicted STRING PPIs, this suggests that these H37Rv STRING PPIs are more likely to correspond to the latter two types of protein pairs rather than to two-hybrid PPIs as well.
The H37Rv B2H PPI dataset has low quality. It should not be used as the gold standard to assess the quality of other (possibly predicted) H37Rv PPI datasets. The H37Rv STRING PPI dataset also has low quality; nevertheless, a subset consisting of STRING PPIs with score ≥770 has satisfactory quality. However, these STRING “PPIs” should be interpreted as functional associations, which include a substantial portion of indirect protein interactions, rather than direct physical interactions. These two factors cause the strikingly low similarity between these two main H37Rv PPI datasets. The results and conclusions from this comparative analysis provide valuable guidance in using these M. tuberculosis H37Rv PPI datasets in subsequent studies for a wide range of purposes.
- Protein Pair
- Functional Association
- Tuberculosis H37Rv
- Jaccard Coefficient
- Term Annotation
Each year millions of tuberculosis patients perish, and fully one-third of the world’s population is infected with the causative agent of this disease, M. tuberculosis. M. tuberculosis H37Rv is one of first fully sequenced M. tuberculosis strains . With the increasingly intensive research focused on this pathogen around the world, M. tuberculosis H37Rv protein-protein interaction (PPI) data has become an important source of protein function and relationship information for relevant studies in microbiology, molecular biology, computational biology and medicine. However, M. tuberculosis H37Rv PPI data is far from complete and accurate. Hitherto predicted M. tuberculosis H37Rv PPIs in the STRING database (version 8.3 contains 248,574 PPIs covering 3,965 proteins in H37Rv)  have seen the most frequent used [4–6] because large-scale experimental PPI datasets have not been available until recently. The first large-scale proteome-wide PPI dataset of H37Rv was produced in 2010 using a high-throughput bacterial two-hybrid (B2H) approach ; it comprises 8,042 PPIs covering 2,907 proteins. No doubt in the foreseeable future, increasingly more studies on M. tuberculosis will be based on both of these datasets.
There is an extremely low overlap of just 276 protein-protein interactions shared between the 8,042 H37Rv PPIs in the B2H dataset and the 248,574 predicted H37Rv PPIs in STRING. It is the objective of this work to investigate the cause of this unexpectedly low overlap. We hypothesize that this low overlap between the two datasets may be due to (i) the B2H dataset is poor in quality, (ii) the STRING dataset is poor in quality, and/or (iii) the STRING dataset does not correspond to direct physical protein-protein interactions.
In order to test the quality of these two M. tuberculosis H37Rv PPI datasets, we evaluate them based on correlated gene expression profiles, coherent informative GO term annotations, and conservation in other organisms. Two proteins that interact are expected to be expressed at the same time and space; thus their underlying genes are likely to exhibit correlated expression profiles. Two proteins interact to effect a biological process or molecular function; thus they are expected to be annotated to some GO terms in common or GO terms that are closely related. Many protein-protein interactions are expected to be conserved across several organisms that have common ancestry; thus real protein interactions are likely to coincide with interologs from such organisms.
These assessments indicate that H37Rv B2H PPIs agree less well with correlated gene expression profiles, coherent informative GO term annotations, and conservation in other organisms than H37Rv STRING PPIs (with score ≥ 770) . This suggests that PPIs in the H37Rv B2H dataset may contain a high level of noise (false positives).
S. aureus is a bacterial pathogen with available high-throughput experimental physical PPI data; and it is close to M. tuberculosis. Thus interologs conserved in S. aureus should be very likely conserved in M. tuberculosis. However, H37Rv predicted physical interologs from IntAct show quite low similarity with the H37Rv B2H PPI dataset; and this similarity level is lower than that between the S. aureus MRSA252 predicted physical interologs from IntAct and S. aureus MRSA252 pull-down PPIs. This suggests the H37Rv B2H dataset may also be missing many real PPIs (false negatives).
To further confirm the suspected low quality of the H37Rv B2H PPI dataset, we compare this M. tuberculosis H37Rv B2H dataset with representative two-hybrid PPI datasets in other species (C. jejuni, Synechocystis and S. cerevisiae) [8–10]. These comparative analyses demonstrate that the quality of the M. tuberculosis H37Rv B2H PPI dataset is poorer than other two-hybrid PPI datasets.
As mentioned earlier, the H37Rv STRING PPI dataset (with score ≥ 770) , comprising entirely of PPIs predicted using a variety of methods, shows good agreement with correlated gene expression profiles, coherent informative GO term annotations, and conservation in other organisms. However, protein pairs that are functionally linked are also expected to agree well with correlated gene expression profiles, coherent informative GO term annotations, and conservation in other organisms, even though many functionally-linked protein pairs do not have direct physical interactions. In order to test whether the predicted PPIs in STRING correspond to direct physical protein-protein interactions, we should analyze the similarity between these predicted PPIs with several distinct types of protein pairs such as experimental PPIs obtained from two-hybrid assays, protein pairs that belong to the same protein complexes, and protein pairs that catalyze adjacent steps in enzymatic pathways. As these types of additional information are not available for M. tuberculosis, we turn to the model organism S. cerevisiae where more comprehensive information is available. We extract from STRING an unbiased representative S. cerevisiae PPI subset (which we denote “predicted functional associations dataset”) that are predicted using similar methods as the H37Rv STRING PPI dataset. For the three different types of protein pairs, we use the following gold standard: (i) the S. cerevisiae two-hybrid PPI dataset from Yu et al , (ii) all protein pairs found in the same S. cerevisiae protein complexes from Wodak Lab , and (iii) protein/gene pairs that catalyze/form successive reaction steps in biological pathways from KEGG , WikiPathways [13, 14] and BioCyc .
This analysis indicates that the predicted S. cerevisiae STRING PPIs show higher similarities with protein pairs in the same protein complexes and protein/gene pairs that catalyze/form adjacent reaction steps in biological pathways than with PPIs reported in two-hybrid assays. Therefore, the predicted S. cerevisiae STRING PPIs are mostly not direct physical protein-protein interactions. As the H37Rv STRING PPIs are predicted using similar methods, in turn, they are also unlikely to correspond to direct physical interactions. Nonetheless, their relatively good agreement with correlated gene expression profiles, coherent informative GO term annotations, and conservation in other organisms suggest that the H37Rv STRING PPIs (at score ≥ 770) are proteins that are functionally linked.
This work thus provides an important guidance to the researchers who might base their works on the two M. tuberculosis H37Rv PPI datasets. The details of our analyses are presented in the sections below.
This section can be divided into four parts: (i) Discover the low similarity between the two main H37Rv PPI datasets. (ii) Evaluate the quality of the two H37Rv PPI datasets in the same organism. (iii) Assess the quality of the H37Rv B2H PPI dataset across organisms. (iv) Analyse characteristics of the STRING PPIs in M. tuberculosis and S. cerevisiae.
Lack of agreement between the two M. tuberculosis H37Rv PPI datasets
Summary of number of PPIs in each STRING prediction approaches
STRING database prediction method
Number of PPIs
STRING database prediction method
Number of PPIs
Transferred text mining
All STRING database PPIs
Overlapping PPIs between the two datasets: 276.
STRING PPIs Precision: 0.00215 Recall: 0.03503.
STRING PPIs (at score ≥ 770) Precision: 0.00574 Recall: 0.00896.
The extremely low agreement between the H37Rv PPIs in the STRING and B2H PPI datasets is rather unexpected. We hypothesize that it may be a result of one or more of the following situations. First, it may be that the H37Rv B2H PPI dataset contains an unusually high level of noise. Second, it may be that the H37Rv STRING PPI dataset and subsets thereof contain an unusually high level of noise. Third, it may be that the predicted PPIs in STRING are not direct physical interactions; rather, they may primarily be other types of functional associations such as protein pairs in the same protein complexes and enzyme pairs catalyzing successive reaction steps.
Overlap PPI number ratios at various STRING score thresholds
The results above reveal the surprisingly low coverage between the two H37Rv PPI datasets. However, as shown in Figure 2, at STRING score ≥770, there is a higher level of overlap between the two datasets. This increase in overlap between two-hybrid PPI dataset and STRING predicted functional associations dataset at high scores is also observed in C. jejuni, Synechocystis  and S. cerevisiae. This suggests that STRING PPIs with high score potentially has higher quality than STRING PPIs with a lower score. Nevertheless, the overlap between these two-hybrid PPI datasets and their respective STRING predicted functional association datasets is no more than 8% at any score interval. Thus, even at a high STRING score threshold, there is no clear agreement between two-hybrid PPIs and STRING predicted functional association datasets. Assuming that not all of these two-hybrid PPI datasets are of low quality, this lack of clear agreement strongly suggests that STRING predicted PPIs are unlikely to correspond mainly to direct physical interactions.
Analysis of PPI dataset using PPI functional intensity matrix
Assessment of PPI datasets using informative GO terms
The functional intensity matrix visualisation in Figure 3 only provides broad perspectives on the functional distribution of PPI datasets. It is not sufficient for gauging the quality of the datasets. Two interacting proteins are more likely to be localized in the same cellular component and/or having a common function role than not . So we calculate the percentage of PPIs in a PPI dataset having coherent informative GO terms—i.e., the rate of interacting protein pairs with common function roles (measured based on informative GO terms in MF and BP categories) and cellular localization (measured based on informative GO terms in the CC category) in the PPI dataset—to evaluate the quality of the PPI dataset.
M. tuberculosis H37Rv GO term annotation and informative GO term identification
No. of informative GO term
No. of proteins been annotated with GO term
No. of proteins been annotated with informative GO term (N = 30)
Analysis of PPI datasets using gene expression profile correlation
PPI datasets assessment using predicted interologs from STRING experimental PPIs
As PPIs are often conserved by related organisms, homology transfer is an often-used technique to predict PPIs—the so-called interologs. On the one hand, a higher level of agreement that a PPI dataset has with interologs gives us confidence that the PPIs are more reliable—i.e., fewer false positives—as they are conserved in other organisms. On the other hand, a lower level of agreement signals that PPIs conserved in related organisms are potentially missing—i.e., more false negatives—in the PPI dataset.
We use different homology transfer methods to build a set of predicted interologs in the target organism M. tuberculosis H37Rv from other (non-M. tuberculosis) organisms that have experimental PPIs in STRING. We then compare this set of interologs to both the H37Rv STRING predicted functional associations dataset (with score ≥ 770) and H37Rv B2H PPI dataset. We use this subset of STRING PPIs (predicted functional associations dataset) to avoid possible confounding effects because the full set of H37Rv STRING PPIs contains some PPIs that actually originate from interologs predicted from experimental PPIs.
In order to find better source PPIs for predicting interologs, a more reliable subset of the experimental PPIs in STRING has been chosen in this experiment. This subset consists of the experimental PPIs in STRING that also have STRING prediction supports.
Results of predicted interologs from STRING experimental PPIs
Source PPIs for homology transfer
STRING database experimental PPIs
Identify homology and transfer
Identified by Inparanoid (default parameters)
M.tuberculosis H37Rv high-throughput B2H PPIs dataset
M. tuberculosis H37Rv predicted functional associations dataset from STRING database(with PPIs score above 770)
Results of predicted interologs from STRING experimental PPIs (with other STRING database prediction support)
Source PPIs for homology transfer
STRING database experimental PPIs (with other prediction support)
Identify homology and transfer
Identified by inparanoid (default parameters)
M. tuberculosis H37Rv high-throughput B2H PPIs dataset
M. tuberculosis H37Rv predicted functional associations datasetfrom STRING database (with PPIs score above 770)
PPI datasets assessment using predicted interologs from IntAct prokaryotic physical interactions
The results discussed above are already persuasive but not precise enough to make sufficient judgment. In particular, the experimental PPIs in STRING are a mixture of both experimental physical interactions and experimental functional associations (e.g., genetic interactions). This may introduce some bias towards the larger agreement observed with the STRING predicted functional associations dataset. Furthermore, some source experimental PPIs in the dataset are not from organisms close to M. tuberculosis. To control for these potential confounding factors, we conduct another set of experiments using interologs predicted from the following two sources that—in theory—are closer to the characteristics of H37Rv B2H PPIs. The first source is the latest pull-down PPI dataset in S. aureus MRSA252 . This dataset has just been released and is not yet included in the current STRING database (version 8.3). The second source comprises physical interactions of eight bacteria (mostly pathogens) in the IntAct database . In particular, we have chosen Rickettsia sibirica 246, Escherichia coli K12, Campylobacter jejuni, Treponema pallidum, Synechocystis sp. PCC 6803, Mycoplasma pneumonia, Myxococcus xanthus DK 1622, and Streptococcus pneumoniae. We group the physical interactions of these eight bacteria from IntAct  into the “selected IntAct prokaryotic physical interactions dataset”.
We transfer interologs from the “selected IntAct prokaryotic physical interactions dataset” to M. tuberculosis H37Rv (named “H37Rv physical interologs dataset”) and to S. aureus MRSA252 (named “MRSA252 physical interologs dataset”). We also transfer interologs from the S. aureus MRSA252 high-throughput pull-down PPI dataset to M. tuberculosis H37Rv (named “H37Rv pull-down interologs dataset”). All the homolog identifications of this experiment use the condition PIDE >30, Coverage >0.2, E-VALUE< 1*e-10.
Comparison of physical interactions and predicted physical interologs datasets
Testing PPI dataset
Overlapping PPIs No.
M. tuberculosis H37Rv
H37Rv pull-down interologs
H37Rv physical interologs
M. tuberculosis H37Rv
H37Rv B2H PPI
H37Rv physical interologs
S. aureus MRSA252
MRSA252 Pull Down PPI dataset
MRSA252 physical interologs
Quality evaluation of two-hybrid PPI datasets from several organisms
Percentage of PPIs in representative two-hybrid PPI datasets having coherent informative GO terms
S. cerevisiae Y2H PPI
S. cerevisiae random PPI
Info GO ratio of S. cerevisiae (Y2H PPI/ random)
Info GO term No.
C. jejuni Y2H PPI
C. jejuni random PPI
Info GO ratio of C. jejuni (Y2H PPI / random)
Info GO term No.
Synechocystis Y2H PPI
Synechocystis random PPI
Info GO ratio of Synechocystis (Y2H PPI / random)
Info GO term No.
M. tuberculosis B2H PPI
M. tuberculosis random PPI
Info GO ratio of M. tuberculosis (B2H PPI / random)
Info GO term No.
Analysis of the characteristics of M. tuberculosis H37Rv PPIs using integrated pathway gene pair relationships
Four types of gene relationships in integrative pathway gene pair relationships
Unified genes relationships
Enzyme-enzyme relation, indicating two enzymes catalyzing successive reaction steps
Protein-protein interaction, such as binding and modification, or proteins belong to same complex
Gene expression interaction, indicating relation of transcription factor and target gene product
However, this task is hampered by the sparse information stored in all the current main pathway databases, like KEGG , WikiPathways [13, 14] and BioCyc . Therefore an integration of pathway information from the three main databases is needed to maximize the effectiveness of pathway information for this comparative analysis of PPI datasets.
Summary of number of pathways before and after integration
Pathways source name
No. of pathways before integration
No. of unique pathways after integration
Results from above experiments show that the M. tuberculosis H37Rv B2H PPI dataset shows very low similarity with ECrel dataset, while most of STRING PPI datasets show good similarity. This provides another explanation for the low similarity between the H37Rv B2H and STRING PPI datasets. Namely, the former dataset contains direct physical interactions, as it is to be expected of B2H assays; while the latter STRING datasets also include substantial amounts of PPIs that are indirect protein relationships.
STRING PPI dataset analysis in S. cerevisiae
The comparative analysis of the various H37Rv PPI datasets using integrated pathway gene pair relationships reveals that the H37Rv STRING PPI dataset may contain a lot of indirect protein relationships. The STRING database has proclaimed itself as a database consisting of “known and predicted protein-protein interactions” . In practise, both physical interactions and functional associations, and both predicted and experimental “PPIs” are included in this database. Therefore, it is important to clearly demonstrate which kind of PPIs are contained in STRING. We return to the most comprehensively investigated model organism—S. cerevisiae — to more precisely analyze the characteristics of PPIs in STRING. As a unified database, the PPIs prediction approaches in the STRING database are consistently used on all the 630 organisms included in it. Thus the phenomena discovered in M. tuberculosis H37Rv should also exist in other organisms like S. cerevisiae, and vice versa. Moreover, we have much more information in S. cerevisiae that can be used for conducting a much more precise analysis. If the situation observed earlier that the M. tuberculosis H37Rv STRING PPI dataset contains a lot of indirect PPIs is also observe in S. cerevisiae, then it will be a sound confirmation of our earlier conclusion.
We similarly obtain the integrated pathway gene pair relationships (mainly ECrel and PPrel) for S. cerevisiae and also separate datasets prepared only from KEGG  for more precise reference. We further collect all protein pairs (named the “S. cerevisiae Complex PPI dataset”) that appear in the same protein complexes using the protein complexes dataset from Wodak Lab . It is obvious that the “S. cerevisiae Complex PPI dataset” may contain a lot of indirect PPIs, like relationships between two non-directly-binding proteins in protein complexes. A representative S. cerevisiae two-hybrid PPI dataset  is also included in this comparative analysis.
Reliable M. tuberculosis H37Rv B2H PPI datasets
Comparative analysis of four reliable H37Rv B2H PPI subsets
Dataset (b) PPIs No.
Dataset (t) PPIs No.
Overlap PPI No.
Benchmark PPI No.
Testing PPI No.
There are several inherent limitations of PPI data generated by two-hybrid approaches (both B2H and Y2H), including PPIs that are detected between over-expressed proteins, between fusion proteins, and in a different host (Yeast or E. coli). Given the data available in this study, we are not able to clearly identify which erroneous B2H PPIs are caused by which inherent limitations of the two-hybrid system. We leave this interesting and difficult challenge to a future project.
Differences between functional associations and physical interactions
Physical interactions correspond to direct protein relationships like two proteins binding to each other. Functional associations can be both direct and indirect protein relationships; for example, two enzymes catalyzing successive reaction steps can be regarded as functional associations. This partially explains the differences between the H37Rv B2H and STRING PPI datasets, as we have demonstrated earlier.
Based on the approach used in generating the PPIs, each of the two major categories can be further divided into two parts, “experimental physical interactions” (e.g., PPIs from Y2H or co-purification); “predicted physical interactions” (e.g., interologs predicted from co-purification PPIs); “experimental functional associations” (e.g., PPIs from synthetic lethality or dosage growth defect); “predicted functional associations” (e.g., PPIs from neighbourhood or co-occurrence). Differences among PPI datasets from the four categories are inevitable, and they all have some portion of real PPIs and some noise. However, a high noise level often overwhelms the agreement between the datasets from these four categories. Real PPIs are both functional associations and physical interactions (intersect dataset), because if two proteins truly interact with each other in normal environments, the two proteins must have functional relationships. The four subsets of reliable H37Rv B2H PPIs identified by us only contain a small number of PPIs and are not enough to illuminate the whole direct physical interactome in M. tuberculosis H37Rv, See Additional file 1 for the four subsets of reliable H37Rv B2H PPIs. Although we have identified a reliable subset of STRING PPI dataset (with score ≥ 770) it may contain a substantial amount of PPIs that are indirect functional associations. Some approaches [22–24] used for protein complex prediction from PPI data can potentially be used to identify physical interactions from STRING functional associations. We leave this interesting problem to a future project.
Comments on the STRING database
The H37Rv STRING PPI dataset (with score ≥ 770) has its merits, especially with respect to functional associations as described earlier. However, some obvious limitations of STRING still need to be overcome in order to maximize its benefits to the community.
Firstly, STRING version 8.3 does not make the source of individual PPIs completely transparent to the public. Neither the web interface nor the downloadable “protein.link.detail.v8.3.txt” file provides a clear indication of a PPI’s exact source, especially for users who lack a license for accessing the “protein.link.full.v8.3.txt” file. For example, they can only know that a PPI comes from “co-expression” but it can actually either come from “transferred co-expression” in other organisms through homology transfer or from “co-expression” of this organism. When looking at the “protein.link.detail.v8.3.txt” file, the H37Rv STRING PPI dataset contains 4,133 PPIs from experiments, whereas only 4 of which actually come from experiments in H37Rv and the rest are from “transferred experiments”. When users have the license to access all the information in this database, they still do not have a clear sense of what type of PPIs are included in STRING. It claimed to consist of “known and predicted protein-protein interactions” on its website , though in its publications it emphasizes on “functional associations” . Actually, both “physical interactions” and “functional associations”, and both “predicted” and “experimental” PPIs, are included in this database. It is helpful to collect and combine all the PPIs in the STRING database; but users should be informed of each PPI’s source (predicting or reporting approaches) and characteristics (physical or functional).
Second, each version of the STRING database release time is quite long, making the STRING PPI datasets incomplete and often obsolete for many organisms. Although some PPI datasets have been published months ago, like the S. aureus MRSA252 pull-down PPI dataset  and the M. tuberculosis H37Rv B2H PPI dataset , neither of them has been included in the STRING database current version 8.3. The difficulty of keeping the PPI data of every organism updated in this large database (containing some 630 organisms) in a timely efficient manner is understandable. We suggest the STRING database team to divide the organisms included in the database into several tiers—for tier-1 organisms, frequent updates should be maintained; for tier-2 organisms, maybe less frequent updates are needed; and so on. This differential update process within the same large database should overcome this limitation and maximize the benefits of the STRING database.
Compare the quality of high-throughput PPI datasets indirectly
Ideally, we should have used confirmed PPI data as the benchmark in evaluating the quality of the H37Rv B2H and STRING datasets. Unfortunately, such confirmed PPI data is not available in a sufficiently large scale for M. tuberculosis H37Rv. Hence, we have resorted to the rather indirect evidence presented in this paper.
Due to inherent limitations of two-hybrid approaches, both B2H- and Y2H-generated PPI datasets usually have low quality. It is more appropriate to compare the quality of the M. tuberculosis H37Rv B2H PPI dataset with that of other B2H PPI datasets; but such large-scale reference B2H PPI datasets are currently not available in public databases. However, by comparing the quality of the B2H PPI dataset with the quality of other representative two-hybrid PPI datasets, we can still conclude that, besides inherent limitations of two-hybrid approaches, the H37Rv B2H PPI dataset has lower quality than other two-hybrid PPI datasets. This suggests that the noise introduced by individual experiments in this H37Rv B2H PPI dataset may be higher than other datasets compared.
Hopefully, in the near future, more high quality B2H PPI data will be reported and more M. tuberculosis H37Rv gold standard PPI data will be confirmed. We will then be in more suitable position to address this concern in a more direct and effective way.
In this work, we have observed the strikingly low agreement between M. tuberculosis H37Rv B2H and STRING PPI datasets. We have demonstrated the two main causes of this low level of agreement. The first reason is the low quality of the B2H PPI dataset, which seems to contain a significant amount of false positives as well as false negatives. The same is true of the H37Rv STRING PPI dataset as a whole, though a subset comprising PPIs with score ≥ 700 seems more reliable. The second reason is that the STRING PPI dataset contains a substantial amount of predicted PPIs that are not direct interactions, which seem more likely to correspond to protein pairs that are in the same protein complexes or protein pairs that are catalyzing adjacent reaction steps in enzymatic pathways.
Because of the low quality of the H37Rv B2H PPI dataset, it should not be used as a gold standard to evaluate the quality of other M. tuberculosis PPI datasets, predicted or otherwise. Researchers who need to use this dataset should do so with great caution. Yet, as the only available large-scale physical interaction dataset of M. tuberculosis H37Rv at the moment, even though it suffers from high noise and low quality, the direct protein physical interaction information in this dataset should not be ignored. We have identified four subsets of this B2H PPI dataset that are more reliable, which can be combined into a single dataset, which can serve as a suitable reference H37Rv physical interaction dataset for many applications.
STRING score is useful for indicating which STRING PPIs have higher quality. We suggest a STRING score threshold set around 770. Nevertheless, the H37Rv STRING PPI dataset (with score ≥ 770) may contain a lot of indirect protein relationships attributable to protein pairs in the same protein complexes or protein pairs forming successive reaction steps in the same biological pathways. Therefore, this dataset can be a good source as a functional associations reference, but it may not be the ideal choice for the purpose of studying physical interactions in M. tuberculosis H37Rv.
Preparing STRING PPI datasets for analyses
STRING database uses a combination of prediction approaches and an integration of other information (neighborhood, transferred neighborhood, gene fusion, text mining, databases, homology transfer, co-occurrence, experiments and so on). The details of PPIs generated by each of the approaches are listed in Table 1.
STRING PPIs come from a mix of experimental data; PPIs copied from public databases (e.g. KEGG and BioGRID) and predicted PPIs. So we derive from STRING a subset of predicted PPIs and name this unbiased STRING subset “predicted functional associations dataset”. This dataset is derived only from the following prediction approaches: neighborhood, transferred neighborhood, gene fusion, co-occurrence, transferred co-expression, text mining, and transferred text mining.
The agreement between a benchmark PPI dataset and a testing PPI dataset
We use Jaccard coefficient, recall, and precision to measure the agreement between a benchmark PPI dataset and a testing PPI dataset. Jaccard coefficient is defined as the size of the intersection of the two datasets divided by the size of the union of the two datasets. Recall is the proportion of benchmark PPIs that are in the testing dataset. Precision is the proportion of testing PPIs that are in the benchmark dataset. Thus,
Jaccard coefficient = TP / (TP+FP +FN);
Precision = TP / (TP+FP);
Recall = TP / (TP + FN).
Here, TP (true positives) represents the number of PPIs in the testing dataset that overlap with the benchmark dataset; FN (false negatives) represents the number of PPIs in the benchmark dataset that are not in the testing dataset; TN (true negatives) represents the number of all possible PPIs that appear in neither the testing dataset nor the benchmark dataset; and FP (false positives) represents the number of PPIs in testing dataset but are not in the benchmark dataset. The Jaccard coefficient, recall, and precision of the benchmark and testing datasets considered in this work are given in Figures 1, 7, 8, 9, and 10.
STRING score distribution of “overlap PPI number ratio”
In order to find which STRING score region has a higher percentage of overlapping PPIs with the B2H PPI dataset, STRING score distribution of “overlap PPI number ratio” between the STRING predicted functional associations dataset and the M. tuberculosis H37Rv B2H PPI dataset were calculated and plotted in Figure 2. At each score interval of 10, the “overlap PPI number ratio” is defined as the number of overlapping PPIs divided by the total number of PPIs in that interval. For example, if there are 300 PPIs from the STRING predicted functional associations dataset are in score range 150~160, and among these 300 PPIs there are 30 PPIs overlapping with the B2H PPI dataset, then in this score range 150~160 the “overlap PPI number ratio” is 30/300 = 0.1. We calculate all the “overlap PPI number ratio” in each interval, STRING score ranging from 150 to 1000, and the distribution of the ratios are plotted in Figure 2.
PPI datasets analysis by PPI functional intensity matrix
COG function annotations are used in the analysis. We calculate the percentage of PPIs in each cell in the matrix. In the matrix, each cell is a combination of the COG functional category between a pair of proteins. The percentage (“intensity”) of PPIs in each cell is the number of PPIs in that cell divided by the total number of PPIs in the dataset. The number of PPIs in a certain cell means the number of PPIs fit the functional categories combination; that is, one partner has been annotated with the COG category on the x axis, the other partner has been annotated with the COG category on the y axis. If “m” PPIs have “J-K” annotations in a dataset that has “n” PPIs—and “J-K” annotations means one partner form J COG functional category, the other partner from “K” COG functional category—then the PPI functional intensity in the “J-K” cell is “m/n”. This is slightly different from the conventional approach of calculating the PPI functional intensity matrix; but it is good enough to convey broad information on the functional distribution of the PPI datasets tested. The PPI functional intensity matrices generated in this work are displayed in Figure 3.
GO term annotation, informative GO term identification and PPI datasets assessments
M. tuberculosis H37Rv, C. jejuni NCTC11168 and Synechocystis sp. PCC6803 proteins are annotated with GO terms using InterProScan . GO terms are organized into three separate hierarchical ontologies—viz., cellular component terms (CC), molecular function terms (MF), and biological process terms (BP). A protein that is annotated by a particular GO term is considered to be annotated by all ancestor terms (in the corresponding hierarchical ontology) of that GO term—that is, the so-called “through-path” rule is applied. As top-level GO terms tend to be annotated to many proteins and leaf-level GO terms to very few proteins, in order to avoid bias in our analysis, we keep only “informative” GO terms for analysis. An informative GO term is defined as a GO term that has at least 30 proteins assigned to it or its descendants and none of its child terms have 30 or more proteins assigned to it. This way, exactly one GO term is considered in any through path. Moreover, each GO term considered is at the finest resolution possible while being annotated to a sufficiently large number of proteins (≥ 30) for a valid analysis.
A pair of proteins come into contact with each other and interacts to perform a function. If the GO term annotations of the proteins in an organism are complete, we can expect such a pair of interacting proteins to have at least one informative GO term annotation in common. Therefore, a predicted or reported PPI is more likely to be a false positive when the two proteins in the PPI do not have an informative GO term annotated to them in common. We can therefore gauge the quality of a PPI dataset by calculating the percentage of PPIs in the dataset (where both proteins in the PPI have informative GO term annotations) that has “coherent” informative GO term annotations. A PPI is said to have coherent informative GO term annotation if the two proteins in the PPI have an informative GO term annotation in common.
However, the percentage of PPIs in a dataset that have coherent informative GO terms can be affected by the number of informative GO terms and by biases in the distribution of proteins these informative GO terms are annotated to. For example, if only one informative GO term was available in the organism, then 100% of the annotated PPIs would be coherent. Thus, to better assess the quality of a PPI dataset by coherence of informative GO term annotations, we need to compare the percentage of coherently annotated PPIs in the dataset to appropriately generate random PPI datasets. In particular, a high ratio (named “Info GO ratio”) of the percentage of coherently annotated PPIs in the PPI dataset compared to that of the random PPI dataset suggests that PPI dataset is likely to be of high quality. We generate random PPI network using the Random Network Plug-in  in Cytoscape . The percentage of PPIs that have coherent informative GO term annotations in the PPI datasets considered in this work is given in Figures 4 and 6, as well as Tables 2 and 8.
Gene expression profile correlation
Here, n is the number of conditions for the expression profiles; xi is the ith expression value of the gene corresponding to protein x in the gene expression profiles Gx; and is the average value of Gx.
The distributions of Pearson correlation values for PPIs in the datasets considered here are plotted in Figure 5.
M. tuberculosis H37Rv interolog prediction
An interolog is a conserved interaction between a pair of proteins which have interacting homologs in another organism. We use two different methods to identify homologs between M. tuberculosis H37Rv and the other 629 organisms in STRING. In the first method, we use Inparanoid  with default parameter setting. In the second method, we use BLASTP  with HVAL > 20 and E-VALUE < 1*e-6. In the third method, we use BLASTP with PIDE > 30, length of the alignment > 20% of query sequence length, and E-VALUE < 1*e-10.
where PIDE is the percentage identities of the BLASTP hit and L is the length of the alignment.
Analysis of characteristics of PPI datasets using integrated pathway gene pair relationships
In order to better understand what the predicted PPIs in STRING really correspond to, we use the pair-wise relationships of proteins/genes from the XML files of each of the pathways in KEGG , WikiPathways [13, 14] and BioCyc . The XML files in these three major pathway databases follow different formats. KEGG pathways information is stored in KGML format. WikiPathways [13, 14] pathway information is recorded in GPML format. BioCyc (specifically, MTBRVcyc) pathway information is stored in BioPAX format . Mining and retrieving pair-wise protein/gene relationships from KGML and GPML are mainly by using our in-house program. For BioPAX , we convert BioPAX files into simple SIF files use paxtools ; then we make some node mapping to retrieve the protein/gene pair relationships. These gene pair relationships are classified in accordance to KEGG  into four categories: ECrel, PPrel, GErel, PCrel; see Table 7. In particular, ECrel comprises protein/gene pairs that catalyze/form adjacent reaction steps in enzymatic pathways, and PPrel comprises protein-protein interactions such as binding and modifications.
Software packages, program tools, materials and datasets
The software packages and program tools used in this study are:
(b) Orthologues Identification software package:
Inparanoid stand-alone package, Version 4.1 .
(c) BioPAX pathway file processing software package:
(d) Random PPI network generation:
(e) Protein Signature annotation program:
The datasets used in this study are:
(a) M. tuberculosis H37Rv Gene Expression Datasets .
(b) Pathways Datasets:
(c) PPI datasets:
M. tuberculosis H37Rv high-throughput B2H PPI dataset .
M. tuberculosis H37Rv in STRING .
S. cerevisiae protein complexes dataset obtained from Wodak Lab .
S. cerevisiae two-hybrid PPI dataset .
C. jejuni two-hybrid PPI dataset .
Synechocystis two-hybrid PPI dataset .
(d) M. tuberculosis H37Rv proteins function annotations:
COG functional categories annotation .
(e) S. cerevisiae GO annotations downloaded from Gene Ontology website  dated 6/12/2010.
We thank Chern Han Yong and Michał Woźniak for critical discussions and suggestions. We thank also Igor Rodchenkov of the Pathway Commons Team and BioPAX Core Group for help and instructions on using paxtool packages effectively. This project was supported in part by an NGS scholarship and a Singapore Ministry of Education Tier-2 grant MOE2009-T2-2-004.
This article has been published as part of BMC Genomics Volume 12 Supplement 3, 2011: Tenth International Conference on Bioinformatics – First ISCB Asia Joint Conference 2011 (InCoB/ISCB-Asia 2011): Computational Biology. The full contents of the supplement are available online at http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2164/12?issue=S3.
- Boshoff HIM, Myers TG, Copp BR, McNeil MR, Wilson MA, Barry CE: The transcriptional responses of Mycobacterium tuberculosis to inhibitors of metabolism. Journal of Biological Chemistry. 2004, 279: 40174-10.1074/jbc.M406796200.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Cole ST, Brosch R, Parkhill J, Garnier T, Churcher C, Harris D, Gordon S, Eiglmeier K, Gas S, Barry CE: Deciphering the biology of Mycobacterium tuberculosis from the complete genome sequence. Nature. 1998, 393: 537-544. 10.1038/31159.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Jensen LJ, Kuhn M, Stark M, Chaffron S, Creevey C, Muller J, Doerks T, Julien P, Roth A, Simonovic M: STRING 8—a global view on proteins and their functional interactions in 630 organisms. Nucleic acids research. 2009, 37: D412-10.1093/nar/gkn760.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Raman K, Yeturu K, Chandra N: targetTB: a target identification pipeline for Mycobacterium tuberculosis through an interactome, reactome and genome-scale structural analysis. BMC systems biology. 2008, 2: 109-PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Raman K, Chandra N: Mycobacterium tuberculosis interactome analysis unravels potential pathways to drug resistance. BMC microbiology. 2008, 8: 234-10.1186/1471-2180-8-234.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Li AH, Waddell SJ, Hinds J, Malloff CA, Bains M, Hancock RE, Lam WL, Butcher PD, Stokes RW: Contrasting transcriptional responses of a virulent and an attenuated strain of Mycobacterium tuberculosis infecting macrophages. PloS one. 2010, 5: e11066-10.1371/journal.pone.0011066.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Wang Y, Cui T, Zhang C, Yang M, Huang Y, Li W, Zhang L, Gao C, He Y, Li Y, et al: Global protein-protein interaction network in the human pathogen Mycobacterium tuberculosis H37Rv. J Proteome Res. 2010, 9: 6665-6677. 10.1021/pr100808n.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Parrish JR, Yu J, Liu G, Hines JA, Chan JE, Mangiola BA, Zhang H, Pacifico S, Fotouhi F, DiRita VJ: A proteome-wide protein interaction map for Campylobacter jejuni. Genome Biology. 2007, 8: R130-10.1186/gb-2007-8-7-r130.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Sato S, Shimoda Y, Muraki A, Kohara M, Nakamura Y, Tabata S: A large-scale protein–protein interaction analysis in Synechocystis sp. PCC6803. DNA research. 2007, 14: 207-10.1093/dnares/dsm021.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Yu H, Braun P, Y ld r m MA, Lemmens I, Venkatesan K, Sahalie J, Hirozane-Kishikawa T, Gebreab F, Li N, Simonis N: High-quality binary protein interaction map of the yeast interactome network. Science. 2008, 322: 104-10.1126/science.1158684.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Pu S, Wong J, Turner B, Cho E, Wodak SJ: Up-to-date catalogues of yeast protein complexes. Nucleic acids research. 2009, 37: 825-10.1093/nar/gkn1005.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Kanehisa M, Goto S: KEGG: Kyoto encyclopedia of genes and genomes. Nucleic acids research. 2000, 28: 27-10.1093/nar/28.1.27.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Pico AR, Kelder T, Van Iersel MP, Hanspers K, Conklin BR, Evelo C: WikiPathways: pathway editing for the people. PLoS biology. 2008, 6: e184-10.1371/journal.pbio.0060184.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Kelder T, Pico AR, Hanspers K, Van Iersel MP, Evelo C, Conklin BR: Mining biological pathways using WikiPathways web services. PloS one. 2009, 4: e6447-10.1371/journal.pone.0006447.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Karp PD, Ouzounis CA, Moore-Kochlacs C, Goldovsky L, Kaipa P, Ahrén D, Tsoka S, Darzentas N, Kunin V, López-Bigas N: Expansion of the BioCyc collection of pathway/genome databases to 160 genomes. Nucleic acids research. 2005, 33: 6083-10.1093/nar/gki892.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Chua HN, Sung WK, Wong L: Exploiting indirect neighbours and topological weight to predict protein function from protein–protein interactions. Bioinformatics. 2006, 22: 1623-10.1093/bioinformatics/btl145.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Grigoriev A: A relationship between gene expression and protein interactions on the proteome scale: analysis of the bacteriophage T7 and the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Nucleic acids research. 2001, 29: 3513-10.1093/nar/29.17.3513.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Gene Expression Omnibus. [http://0-www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.brum.beds.ac.uk/geo/]
- Cherkasov A, Hsing M, Zoraghi R, Foster LJ, See RH, Stoynov N, Jiang J, Kaur S, Lian T, Jackson L, et al: Mapping the protein interaction network in methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. J Proteome Res. 2011, 10: 1139-1150. 10.1021/pr100918u.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Aranda B, Achuthan P, Alam-Faruque Y, Armean I, Bridge A, Derow C, Feuermann M, Ghanbarian A, Kerrien S, Khadake J: The IntAct molecular interaction database in 2010. Nucleic acids research. 2010, 38: D525-10.1093/nar/gkp878.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- STRING. [http://string-db.org/]
- Qiu J, Noble WS: Predicting co-complexed protein pairs from heterogeneous data. PLoS computational biology. 2008, 4: e1000054-10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000054.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Wang H, Kakaradov B, Collins SR, Karotki L, Fiedler D, Shales M, Shokat KM, Walther TC, Krogan NJ, Koller D: A complex-based reconstruction of the Saccharomyces cerevisiae interactome. Molecular & Cellular Proteomics. 2009, 8: 1361-10.1074/mcp.M800490-MCP200.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Zhang L, Wong S, King O, Roth F: Predicting co-complexed protein pairs using genomic and proteomic data integration. BMC bioinformatics. 2004, 5: 38-10.1186/1471-2105-5-38.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Zdobnov EM, Apweiler R: InterProScan–an integration platform for the signature-recognition methods in InterPro. Bioinformatics. 2001, 17: 847-10.1093/bioinformatics/17.9.847.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Random Network Plugin. [http://sites.google.com/site/randomnetworkplugin/]
- Shannon P, Markiel A, Ozier O, Baliga NS, Wang JT, Ramage D, Amin N, Schwikowski B, Ideker T: Cytoscape: a software environment for integrated models of biomolecular interaction networks. Genome research. 2003, 13: 2498-10.1101/gr.1239303.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Wu M, Li X, Chua H, Kwoh CK, Ng SK: Integrating diverse biological and computational sources for reliable protein-protein interactions. BMC bioinformatics. 2010, 11: S8-PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Remm M, Storm CEV, Sonnhammer ELL: Automatic clustering of orthologs and in-paralogs from pairwise species comparisons1. Journal of molecular biology. 2001, 314: 1041-1052. 10.1006/jmbi.2000.5197.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Altschul SF, Madden TL, Schäffer AA, Zhang J, Zhang Z, Miller W, Lipman DJ: Gapped BLAST and PSI-BLAST: a new generation of protein database search programs. Nucleic acids research. 1997, 25: 3389-10.1093/nar/25.17.3389.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Rost B: Twilight zone of protein sequence alignments. Protein engineering. 1999, 12: 85-10.1093/protein/12.2.85.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Demir E, Cary MP, Paley S, Fukuda K, Lemer C, Vastrik I, Wu G, D'Eustachio P, Schaefer C, Luciano J: The BioPAX community standard for pathway data sharing. Nature biotechnology. 2010, 28: 935-942. 10.1038/nbt.1666.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- NCBI/BLAST Home. [http://blast.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Blast.cgi?CMD=Web&PAGE_TYPE=BlastHome]
- Clusters of Orthologous Groups of proteins (COGs). [http://0-www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.brum.beds.ac.uk/COG/]
- Gene Ontology website. [http://www.geneontology.org/]
This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.