ReviewOpen Access cc icon

Resolving the network of cell signaling pathways using the evolving yeast two-hybrid system

Vladimir Ratushny

Erica A. Golemis

Vladimir Ratushny

Fox Chase Cancer Center

Drexel University College of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA

Search for more papers by this author

Erica A. Golemis

^*Address correspondence to Erica A. Golemis, Fox Chase Cancer Center, W406, 333 Cottman Avenue, Philadelphia, PA 19111 USA. e-mail:

E-mail Address: EA_Golemis@fccc.edu

Fox Chase Cancer Center

Search for more papers by this author

Published Online:16 May 2018https://doi.org/10.2144/000112797

View article

Abstract

In 1983, while investigators had identified a few human proteins as important regulators of specific biological outcomes, how these proteins acted in the cell was essentially unknown in almost all cases. Twenty-five years later, our knowledge of the mechanistic basis of protein action has been transformed by our increasingly detailed understanding of protein-protein interactions, which have allowed us to define cellular machines. The advent of the yeast two-hybrid (Y2H) system in 1989 marked a milestone in the field of proteomics. Exploiting the modular nature of transcription factors, the Y2H system allows facile measurement of the activation of reporter genes based on interactions between two chimeric or “hybrid” proteins of interest. After a decade of service as a leading platform for individual investigators to use in exploring the interaction properties of interesting target proteins, the Y2H system has increasingly been applied in high-throughput applications intended to map genome-scale protein-protein interactions for model organisms and humans. Although some significant technical limitations apply, Y2H has made a great contribution to our general understanding of the topology of cellular signaling networks.

References

1. McCoy, M.S., J.J. Toole, J.M. Cunningham, E.H. Chang, D.R. Lowy, and R.A. Weinberg. 1983. Characterization of a human colon/lung carcinoma oncogene. Nature 302:79–81.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
2. Schwab, M., K. Alitalo, K.H. Klempnauer, H.E. Varmus, J.M. Bishop, F. Gilbert, G. Brodeur, M. Goldstein, and J. Trent. 1983. Amplified DNA with limited homology to myc cellular oncogene is shared by human neuroblastoma cell lines and a neuroblastoma tumour. Nature 305:245–248.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
3. Capon, D.J., E.Y. Chen, A.D. Levinson, P.H. Seeburg, and D.V. Goeddel. 1983. Complete nucleotide sequences of the T24 human bladder carcinoma oncogene and its normal homologue. Nature 302:33–37.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
4. Schwab, M., K. Alitalo, H.E. Varmus, J.M. Bishop, and D. George. 1983. A cellular oncogene (c-Ki-ras) is amplified, overexpressed, and located within karyotypic abnormalities in mouse adrenocortical tumour cells. Nature 303:497–501.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
5. Fields, S. and O. Song. 1989. A novel genetic system to detect protein-protein interactions. Nature 340:245–246.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
6. Chevray, P.M. and D. Nathans. 1992. Protein interaction cloning in yeast: identification of mammalian proteins that react with the leucine zipper of Jun. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 89:5789–5793.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
7. Chien, C.T., P.L. Bartel, R. Sternglanz, and S. Fields. 1991. The two-hybrid system: a method to identify and clone genes for proteins that interact with a protein of interest. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 88:9578–9582.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
8. Durfee, T., K. Becherer, P.L. Chen, S.H. Yeh, Y. Yang, A.E. Kilburn, W.H. Lee, and S.J. Elledge. 1993. The retinoblastoma protein associates with the protein phosphatase type 1 catalytic subunit. Genes Dev. 7:555–569.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
9. Estojak, J., R. Brent, and E.A. Golemis. 1995. Correlation of two-hybrid affinity data with in vitro measurements. Mol. Cell. Biol. 15:5820–5829.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
10. Gyuris, J., E. Golemis, H. Chertkov, and R. Brent. 1993. Cdi1, a human G1 and S phase protein phosphatase that associates with Cdk2. Cell 75:791–803.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
11. Vojtek, A.B., S.M. Hollenberg, and J.A. Cooper. 1993. Mammalian Ras interacts directly with the serine/threonine kinase Raf. Cell 74:205–214.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
12. Brent, R. and M. Ptashne. 1981. Mechanism of action of the lexA gene product. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 78:4204–4208.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
13. Zervos, A.S., J. Gyuris, and R. Brent. 1993. Mxi1, a protein that specifically interacts with Max to bind Myc-Max recognition sites. Cell 72:223–232.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
14. Golemis, E.A. (Ed.) 2005. Protein-Protein Interactions. CSH Laboratory Press, Cold Spring Harbor, NY.
Google Scholar
15. Du, W., M. Vidal, J.E. Xie, and N. Dyson. 1996. RBF, a novel RB-related gene that regulates E2F activity and interacts with cyclin E in Drosophila. Genes Dev. 10:1206–1218.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
16. Marsolier, M.C., M.N. Prioleau, and A. Sentenac. 1997. A RNA polymerase III-based two-hybrid system to study RNA polymerase II transcriptional regulators. J. Mol. Biol. 268:243–249.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
17. Marsolier, M.C. and A. Sentenac. 1999. RNA polymerase III-based two-hybrid system. Methods Enzymol. 303:411–422.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
18. Stagljar, I., C. Korostensky, N. Johnsson, and S. te Heesen. 1998. A genetic system based on split-ubiquitin for the analysis of interactions between membrane proteins in vivo. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 95:5187–5192.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
19. Serebriiskii, I., J. Estojak, M. Berman, and E.A. Golemis. 2000. Approaches to detecting false positives in yeast two-hybrid systems. BioTechniques 28:328–330 332-326.
CASGoogle Scholar
20. Serebriiskii, I., V. Khazak, and E.A. Golemis. 1999. A two-hybrid dual bait system to discriminate specificity of protein interactions. J. Biol. Chem. 274:17080–17087.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
21. Serebriiskii, I.G., O.V. Mitina, J. Chernoff, and E.A. Golemis. 2001. Two-hybrid dual bait system to discriminate specificity of protein interactions in small GTPases. Methods Enzymol. 332:277–300.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
22. Fields, S. 2005. High-throughput two-hybrid analysis. The promise and the peril. FEBS J. 272:5391–5399.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
23. Ito, T., K. Ota, H. Kubota, Y. Yamaguchi, T. Chiba, K. Sakuraba, and M. Yoshida. 2002. Roles for the two-hybrid system in exploration of the yeast protein interactome. Mol. Cell. Proteomics 1:561–566.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
24. Ito, T., T. Chiba, R. Ozawa, M. Yoshida, M. Hattori, and Y. Sakaki. 2001. A comprehensive two-hybrid analysis to explore the yeast protein interactome. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 98:4569–4574.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
25. Mrowka, R., A. Patzak, and H. Herzel. 2001. Is there a bias in proteome research? Genome Res. 11:1971–1973.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
26. von Mering, C., R. Krause, B. Snel, M. Cornell, S.G. Oliver, S. Fields, and P. Bork. 2002. Comparative assessment of large-scale data sets of protein-protein interactions. Nature 417:399–403.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
27. Fashena, S.J., I. Serebriiskii, and E.A. Golemis. 2000. The continued evolution of two-hybrid screening approaches in yeast: how to outwit different preys with different baits. Gene 250:1–14.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
28. Osborne, M.A., S. Dalton, and J.P. Kochan. 1995. The yeast tribrid system—genetic detection of trans-phosphorylated ITAM-SH2-interactions. Biotechnology (N. Y.) 13:1474–1478.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
29. Osborne, M.A., G. Zenner, M. Lubinus, X. Zhang, Z. Songyang, L.C. Cantley, P. Majerus, P. Burn, and J.P. Kochan. 1996. The inositol 5′-phosphatase SHIP binds to immunoreceptor signaling motifs and responds to high affinity IgE receptor aggregation. J. Biol. Chem. 271:29271–29278.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
30. Park, Y.W., J. Wilusz, and M.G. Katze. 1999. Regulation of eukaryotic protein synthesis: selective influenza viral mRNA translation is mediated by the cellular RNA-binding protein GRSF-1. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 96:6694–6699.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
31. Putz, U., P. Skehel, and D. Kuhl. 1996. A tri-hybrid system for the analysis and detection of RNA--protein interactions. Nucleic Acids Res. 24:4838–4840.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
32. SenGupta, D.J., B. Zhang, B. Kraemer, P. Pochart, S. Fields, and M. Wickens. 1996. A three-hybrid system to detect RNA-protein interactions in vivo. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 93:8496–8501.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
33. Wang, Z.F., M.L. Whitfield, T.C. Ingledue III, Z. Dominski, and W.F. Marzluff. 1996. The protein that binds the 3′ end of histone mRNA: a novel RNA-binding protein required for histone pre-mRNA processing. Genes Dev. 10:3028–3040.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
34. Vidal, M., R.K. Brachmann, A. Fattaey, E. Harlow, and J.D. Boeke. 1996. Reverse two-hybrid and one-hybrid systems to detect dissociation of protein-protein and DNA-protein interactions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 93:10315–10320.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
35. Vidal, M., P. Braun, E. Chen, J.D. Boeke, and E. Harlow. 1996. Genetic characterization of a mammalian protein-protein interaction domain by using a yeast reverse two-hybrid system. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 93:10321–10326.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
36. Huang, J. and S.L. Schreiber. 1997. A yeast genetic system for selecting small molecule inhibitors of protein-protein interactions in nanodroplets. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 94:13396–13401.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
37. Vidal, M. and H. Endoh. 1999. Prospects for drug screening using the reverse two-hybrid system. Trends Biotechnol. 17:374–381.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
38. Young, K., S. Lin, L. Sun, E. Lee, M. Modi, S. Hellings, M. Husbands, B. Ozenberger, and R. Franco. 1998. Identification of a calcium channel modulator using a high throughput yeast two-hybrid screen. Nat. Biotechnol. 16:946–950.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
39. International Human Genome Sequencing Consortium. 2004. Finishing the euchromatic sequence of the human genome. Nature 431:931–945.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
40. Goffeau, A., B.G. Barrell, H. Bussey, R.W. Davis, B. Dujon, H. Feldmann, F. Galibert, J.D. Hoheisel, et al.. 1996. Life with 6000 genes. Science 274:546, 563–567.
Google Scholar
41. McPherson, J.D., M. Marra, L. Hillier, R.H. Waterston, A. Chinwalla, J. Wallis, M. Sekhon, K. Wylie, et al.. 2001. A physical map of the human genome. Nature 409:934–941.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
42. C. elegans Sequencing Consortium. 1998. Genome sequence of the nematode C. elegans: a platform for investigating biology. Science 282:2012–2018.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
43. Adams, M.D., S.E. Celniker, R.A. Holt, C.A. Evans, J.D. Gocayne, P.G. Amanatides, S.E. Scherer, P.W. Li, et al.. 2000. The genome sequence of Drosophila melanogaster. Science 287:2185–2195.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
44. Bartel, P.L., J.A. Roecklein, D. SenGupta, and S. Fields. 1996. A protein linkage map of Escherichia coli bacteriophage T7. Nat. Genet. 12:72–77.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
45. Giot, L., J.S. Bader, C. Brouwer, A. Chaudhuri, B. Kuang, Y. Li, Y.L. Hao, C.E. Ooi, et al.. 2003. A protein interaction map of Drosophila melanogaster. Science 302:1727–1736.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
46. LaCount, D.J., M. Vignali, R. Chettier, A. Phansalkar, R. Bell, J.R. Hesselberth, L.W. Schoenfeld, I. Ota, et al.. 2005. A protein interaction network of the malaria parasite Plasmodium falciparum. Nature 438:103–107.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
47. Li, S., C.M. Armstrong, N. Bertin, H. Ge, S. Milstein, M. Boxem, P.O. Vidalain, J.D. Han, et al.. 2004. A map of the interactome network of the metazoan C. elegans. Science 303:540–543 .
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
48. Rain, J.C., L. Selig, H. De Reuse, V. Battaglia, C. Reverdy, S. Simon, G. Lenzen, F. Petel, et al.. 2001. The protein-protein interaction map of Helicobacter pylori. Nature 409:211–215.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
49. Rual, J.F., K. Venkatesan, T. Hao, T. Hirozane-Kishikawa, A. Dricot, N. Li, G.F. Berriz, F.D. Gibbons, et al.. 2005. Towards a proteome-scale map of the human protein-protein interaction network. Nature 437:1173–1178.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
50. Stelzl, U., U. Worm, M. Lalowski, C. Haenig, F.H. Brembeck, H. Goehler, M. Stroedicke, M. Zenkner, et al.. 2005. A human protein-protein interaction network: a resource for annotating the proteome. Cell 122:957–968.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
51. Uetz, P., Y.A. Dong, C. Zeretzke, C. Atzler, A. Baiker, B. Berger, S.V. Rajagopala, M. Roupelieva, et al.. 2006. Herpesviral protein networks and their interaction with the human proteome. Science 311:239–242.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
52. Fromont-Racine, M., A.E. Mayes, A. Brunet-Simon, J.C. Rain, A. Colley, I. Dix, L. Decourty, N. Joly, et al.. 2000. Genome-wide protein interaction screens reveal functional networks involving Sm-like proteins. Yeast 17:95–110.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
53. Uetz, P., L. Giot, G. Cagney, T.A. Mansfield, R.S. Judson, J.R. Knight, D. Lockshon, V. Narayan, et al.. 2000. A comprehensive analysis of protein-protein interactions in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Nature 403:623–627.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
54. Finley, R.L., Jr. and R. Brent. 1994. Interaction mating reveals binary and ternary connections between Drosophila cell cycle regulators. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 91:12980–12984.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
55. Ma, H., S. Kunes, P.J. Schatz, and D. Botstein. 1987. Plasmid construction by homologous recombination in yeast. Gene 58:201–216.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
56. Sanger, F., S. Nicklen, and A.R. Coulson. 1977. DNA sequencing with chain-terminating inhibitors. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 74:5463–5467.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
57. Grigoriev, A. 2003. On the number of protein-protein interactions in the yeast proteome. Nucleic Acids Res. 31:4157–4161.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
58. Han, J.D., D. Dupuy, N. Bertin, M.E. Cusick, and M. Vidal. 2005. Effect of sampling on topology predictions of protein-protein interaction networks. Nat. Biotechnol. 23:839–844.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
59. Walhout, A.J., S.J. Boulton, and M. Vidal. 2000. Yeast two-hybrid systems and protein interaction mapping projects for yeast and worm. Yeast 17:88–94.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
60. Hart, G.T., A.K. Ramani, and E.M. Marcotte. 2006. How complete are current yeast and human protein-interaction networks? Genome Biol. 7:120.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
61. Parrish, J.R., K.D. Gulyas, R.L., and Finley, Jr. 2006. Yeast two-hybrid contributions to interactome mapping. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 17:387–393.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
62. Stanyon, C.A., G. Liu, B.A. Mangiola, N. Patel, L. Giot, B. Kuang, H. Zhang, J. Zhong, and R.L. Finley Jr. 2004. A Drosophila protein-interaction map centered on cell-cycle regulators. Genome Biol. 5:R96.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
63. Gavin, A.C., M. Bosche, R. Krause, P. Grandi, M. Marzioch, A. Bauer, J. Schultz, J.M. Rick, et al.. 2002. Functional organization of the yeast proteome by systematic analysis of protein complexes. Nature 415:141–147.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
64. Ho, Y., A. Gruhler, A. Heilbut, G.D. Bader, L. Moore, S.L. Adams, A. Millar, P. Taylor, et al.. 2002. Systematic identification of protein complexes in Saccharomyces cerevisiae by mass spectrometry. Nature 415:180–183.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
65. Cho, R.J., M.J. Campbell, E.A. Winzeler, L. Steinmetz, A. Conway, L. Wodicka, T.G. Wolfsberg, A.E. Gabrielian, et al.. 1998. A genome-wide transcriptional analysis of the mitotic cell cycle. Mol. Cell 2:65–73.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
66. Hughes, T.R., M.J. Marton, A.R. Jones, C.J. Roberts, R. Stoughton, C.D. Armour, H.A. Bennett, E. Coffey, et al.. 2000. Functional discovery via a compendium of expression profiles. Cell 102:109–126.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
67. Mewes, H.W., D. Frishman, U. Guldener, G. Mannhaupt, K. Mayer, M. Mokrejs, B. Morgenstern, M. Munsterkotter, et al.. 2002. MIPS: a database for genomes and protein sequences. Nucleic Acids Res. 30:31–34.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
68. Tong, A.H., M. Evangelista, A.B. Parsons, H. Xu, G.D. Bader, N. Page, M. Robinson, S. Raghibizadeh, et al.. 2001. Systematic genetic analysis with ordered arrays of yeast deletion mutants. Science 294:2364–2368.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
69. Enright, A.J., I. Iliopoulos, N.C. Kyrpides, and C.A. Ouzounis. 1999. Protein interaction maps for complete genomes based on gene fusion events. Nature 402:86–90.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
70. Marcotte, E.M., M. Pellegrini, H.L. Ng, D.W. Rice, T.O. Yeates, and D. Eisenberg. 1999. Detecting protein function and protein-protein interactions from genome sequences. Science 285:751–753.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
71. Overbeek, R., M. Fonstein, M. D'Souza, G.D. Pusch, and N. Maltsev. 1999. The use of gene clusters to infer functional coupling. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 96:2896–2901.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
72. Pellegrini, M., E.M. Marcotte, M.J. Thompson, D. Eisenberg, and T.O. Yeates. 1999. Assigning protein functions by comparative genome analysis: protein phylogenetic profiles. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 96:4285–4288.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
73. Huynen, M., B. Snel, W. Lathe III, and P. Bork. 2000. Predicting protein function by genomic context: quantitative evaluation and qualitative inferences. Genome Res. 10:1204–1210.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
74. Marcotte, E.M., M. Pellegrini, M.J. Thompson, T.O. Yeates, and D. Eisenberg. 1999. A combined algorithm for genome-wide prediction of protein function. Nature 402:83–86.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
75. Friedman, A. and N. Perrimon. 2007. Genetic screening for signal transduction in the era of network biology. Cell 128:225–231.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
76. Han, J.D., N. Bertin, T. Hao, D.S. Goldberg, G.F. Berriz, L.V. Zhang, D. Dupuy, A.J. Walhout, et al.. 2004. Evidence for dynamically organized modularity in the yeast protein-protein interaction network. Nature 430:88–93.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
77. Friedman, A. and N. Perrimon. 2006. A functional RNAi screen for regulators of receptor tyrosine kinase and ERK signalling. Nature 444:230–234.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
78. Jeong, H., S.P. Mason, A.L. Barabasi, and Z.N. Oltvai. 2001. Lethality and centrality in protein networks. Nature 411:41–42.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
79. Strogatz, S.H. 2001. Exploring complex networks. Nature 410:268–276.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
80. Winzeler, E.A., D.D. Shoemaker, A. Astromoff, H. Liang, K. Anderson, B. Andre, R. Bangham, R. Benito, et al.. 1999. Functional characterization of the S. cerevisiae genome by gene deletion and parallel analysis. Science 285:901–906.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
81. Gandhi, T.K., J. Zhong, S. Mathivanan, L. Karthick, K.N. Chandrika, S.S. Mohan, S. Sharma, S. Pinkert, et al.. 2006. Analysis of the human protein interactome and comparison with yeast, worm and fly interaction datasets. Nat. Genet. 38:285–293.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
82. Suter, B., S. Kittanakom, and I. Stagljar. Interactive proteomics: what lies ahead? BioTechniques 44: 681–691.
Google Scholar
83. Deane, C.M., L. Salwinski, I. Xenarios, and D. Eisenberg. 2002. Protein interactions: two methods for assessment of the reliability of high throughput observations. Mol. Cell. Proteomics 1:349–356.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
84. Kelley, B.P., B. Yuan, F. Lewitter, R. Sharan, B.R. Stockwell, and T. Ideker. 2004. PathBLAST: a tool for alignment of protein interaction networks. Nucleic Acids Res. 32:W83–W88.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
85. Stuart, J.M., E. Segal, D. Koller, and S.K. Kim. 2003. A gene-coexpression network for global discovery of conserved genetic modules. Science 302:249–255.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
86. Yu, H., N.M. Luscombe, H.X. Lu, X. Zhu, Y. Xia, J.D. Han, N. Bertin, S. Chung, et al.. 2004. Annotation transfer between genomes: protein-protein interologs and protein-DNA regulogs. Genome Res. 14:1107–1118.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
87. Bandyopadhyay, S., R. Sharan, and T. Ideker. 2006. Systematic identification of functional orthologs based on protein network comparison. Genome Res. 16:428–435.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
88. Suthram, S., T. Sittler, and T. Ideker. 2005. The Plasmodium protein network diverges from those of other eukaryotes. Nature 438:108–112.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
89. Peri, S., J.D. Navarro, T.Z. Kristiansen, R. Amanchy, V. Surendranath, B. Muthusamy, T.K. Gandhi, K.N. Chandrika, et al.. 2004. Human protein reference database as a discovery resource for proteomics. Nucleic Acids Res. 32:D497–D501.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
90. Collins, S.R., K.M. Miller, N.L. Maas, A. Roguev, J. Fillingham, C.S. Chu, M. Schuldiner, M. Gebbia, et al.. 2007. Functional dissection of protein complexes involved in yeast chromosome biology using a genetic interaction map. Nature 446:806–810.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
91. Pierce, S.E., E.L. Fung, D.F. Jaramillo, A.M. Chu, R.W. Davis, C. Nislow, and G. Giaever. 2006. A unique and universal molecular barcode array. Nat. Methods 3:601–603.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
92. Zhong, W. and P.W. Sternberg. 2006. Genome-wide prediction of C. elegans genetic interactions. Science (New York, N. Y.) 311:1481–1484.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
93. Breitkreutz, B.J., C. Stark, T. Reguly, L. Boucher, A. Breitkreutz, M. Livstone, R. Oughtred, D.H. Lackner, et al.. 2008. The BioGRID Interaction Database: 2008 update. Nucleic Acids Res. 36:D637–D640.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
94. Alfarano, C., C.E. Andrade, K. Anthony, N. Bahroos, M. Bajec, K. Bantoft, D. Betel, B. Bobechko, et al.. 2005. The Biomolecular Interaction Network Database and related tools 2005 update. Nucleic Acids Res. 33:D418–D424.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
95. Orchard, S., L. Montechi-Palazzi, E.W. Deutsch, P.A. Binz, A.R. Jones, N. Paton, A. Pizarro, D.M. Creasy, et al.. 2007. Five years of progress in the Standardization of Proteomics Data 4th Annual Spring Workshop of the HUPO-Proteomics Standards Initiative, April 23-25, 2007 Ecole Nationale Superieure (ENS), Lyon, France. Proteomics 7:3436–3440.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar

Vol. 44, No. 5

Metrics

Downloaded 1,532 times

History

Published online 16 May 2018

Published in print April 2008

Information

Acknowledgments

The authors were supported by National Institutes of Health (NIH) RO1s CA63366 and CA113342; by Tobacco Settlement funding from the State of Pennsylvania (to E.A.G.); by an AACR-Littlefield Award; by NIH core grant no. CA-06927; and support from the Pew Charitable Fund to Fox Chase Cancer Center. We are grateful to members of the Golemis laboratory for critical comments on the manuscript.

Competing Interests Statement

The authors declare no competing interests.

PDF download