Abstract
AbstractNetwork-based ranking methods (e.g., centrality analysis) have found extensive use in systems biology and network medicine for the prediction of essential proteins, for the prioritization of drug targets candidates in the treatment of several pathologies and in biomarker discovery, and for human disease genes identification. We here studied the connectivity of the human protein-protein interaction network (i.e., the interactome) to find the nodes whose removal has the heaviest impact on the network, i.e., maximizes its fragmentation. Such nodes are known as Critical Nodes (CNs). Specifically, we implemented a Critical Node Heuristic (CNH) and compared its performance against other four heuristics based on well known centrality measures. To better understand the structure of the interactome, the CNs’ role played in the network, and the different heuristics’ capabilities to grasp biologically relevant nodes, we compared the sets of nodes identified as CNs by each heuristic with two experimentally validated sets of essential genes, i.e., the genes whose removal impact on a given organism’s ability to survive. Our results show that classical centrality measures (i.e., closeness centrality, degree) found more essential genes with respect to CNH on the current version of the human interactome, however the removal of such nodes does not have the greatest impact on interactome connectivity, while, interestingly, the genes identified by CNH show peculiar characteristics both from the topological and the biological point of view. Finally, even if a relevant fraction of essential genes is found via the classical centrality measures, the same measures seem to fail in identifying the whole set of essential genes, suggesting once again that some of them are not central in the network, that there may be biases in the current interaction data, and that different, combined graph theoretical and other techniques should be applied for their discovery.
Publisher
Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory