Mapping of Protein–Protein Interaction: Identification, Affinity Purification, Tandem Affinity Purification and Quality of Protein Interaction Data

Authors

  • Zainab Mohammed Ali Abdul-Kadhim Shaker University of Babylon, College of Science for Women, Department of Biology
  • Ghafran Qais Jawad Jarallah University of Babylon, College of Science / Department of Biology
  • Mohammed Hassan Kalf Saad University of Al-Qadisiyah, College of Science, Department of Biology
  • Safaa Ibrahim Kazim Jadou Rashid University College, Department of Biology

Keywords:

Protein–Protein Interaction, Affinity Purification, Affinity, Quality, Protein Interaction Data

Abstract

The utilization of mass spectrometry for protein identification has brought about a sea change in the proteomics discipline. Mass spectrometry, in conjunction with a number of affinity purification methods, can detect interactions between proteins. Protein complexes can be purified via tandem affinity purification or any of a number of other tags. Another popular tag is the FLAG tag; it is tiny and usually doesn't get in the way of the protein's activity. To prepare proteins for further identification using ESI-MS or MALDI-MS, various affinity purification techniques are employed. Rapid progress in the creation of new treatment strategies depends on our ability to better comprehend the biological pathways underpinning disease. Protein interactions are a common mediator of disease processes. We can learn more about the causes, development, and pathophysiology of diseases and find possible druggable targets if we can deduce how protein-protein interactions physically change in reaction to mutations, pathological circumstances, or pathogen infection. Recent developments in quantitative mass spectrometry (MS)-based methods have made it possible to map these alterations in protein-protein interactions produced by diseases on a worldwide scale in an unbiased manner. In this article, we take a look back at magnetic resonance imaging (MS) methods that have helped pinpoint system-level protein-protein interactions, and we talk about the problems with these approaches, as well as new developments in MS that try to fix them. Nevertheless, disease networks should not be considered independently. The importance of the mechanisms suggested by an interactome must be assessed, however, in the same way as with any systems biology approach. Because of its scalability, immortalised cell lines are a common tool for PPI research. Though simple to work with, these cell lines may miss the mark when it comes to capturing relationships that matter in more complicated tissues and creatures. More functionally relevant and physiologically correct disease models for studying interactions can be developed with the use of newer genetic techniques, such as CRISPR/Cas9-based genome engineering of primary cells. We are getting closer to incorporating these technologies into personalised medical applications as technology keeps getting better and these methods become more widely available and have higher throughput. In addition to helping doctors understand how the body works, they may also pinpoint exactly where a patient's network is most vulnerable and advise them on the best courses of treatment. Proteomics has progressed greatly since MS was used for protein identification. This area will see further advancements with the introduction of novel affinity purification methods and MS machines. The rate of false positives and negatives can be reduced through more stringent experimental design and data processing. At long last, everything is in place to go on with the human interactome identification. On a grand scale, scientists will one day be able to examine how protein interactions change in response to various stimuli and compare the interactome of cells in various disease states or after treatment with various cues.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Aebersold R, Mann M (2016) Mass-spectrometric exploration of proteome structure and function. Nature 537: 347 – 355

Antonicka H, Lin Z-Y, Janer A, Aaltonen MJ, Weraarpachai W, Gingras A-C, Shoubridge EA (2020) A high-density human mitochondrial proximity interaction network. Cell Metab 32: 479 – 497.

Banerjee S, Wei T, Wang J, Lee JJ, Gutierrez HL, Chapman O, Wiley SE, Mayfield JE, Tandon V, Juarez EF et al (2019) Inhibition of dual-specificity tyrosine phosphorylation-regulated kinase 2 perturbs 26S proteasomeaddicted neoplastic progression. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 116: 24881 – 24891

Batra J, Hultquist JF, Liu D, Shtanko O, Von Dollen J, Satkamp L, Jang GM, Luthra P, Schwarz TM, Small GI et al (2018) Protein interaction mapping identifies RBBP6 as a negative regulator of Ebola virus replication. Cell 175: 1917 – 1930.

Beltran PMJ, Jean Beltran PM, Federspiel JD, Sheng X, Cristea IM (2017) Proteomics and integrative omic approaches for understanding host– pathogen interactions and infectious diseases. Mol Syst Biol 13: 922

Bouhaddou M, Eckhardt M, Chi Naing ZZ, Kim M, Ideker T, Krogan NJ (2019) Mapping the protein-protein and genetic interactions of cancer to guide precision medicine. Curr Opin Genet Dev 54: 110 – 117

Branon TC, Bosch JA, Sanchez AD, Udeshi ND, Svinkina T, Carr SA, Feldman JL, Perrimon N, Ting AY (2018) Efficient proximity labeling in living cells and organisms with TurboID. Nat Biotechnol 36: 880 – 887

Buljan M, Blattmann P, Aebersold R, Boutros M (2018) Systematic characterization of pan-cancer mutation clusters. Mol Syst Biol 14: e7974

Calderone A, Licata L, Cesareni G (2015) VirusMentha: a new resource for virus-host protein interactions. Nucleic Acids Res. 43: D588 – D592

Chang I-F (2006) Mass spectrometry-based proteomic analysis of the epitope-tag affinity purified protein complexes in eukaryotes. Proteomics 6: 6158 – 6166

Cheerathodi MR, Meckes Jr DG (2020) BioID combined with mass spectrometry to study herpesvirus protein-protein interaction networks. Methods Mol Biol 2060: 327 – 341

Eisen MB, Spellman PT, Brown PO, Botstein D. 1998. Cluster analysis and display of genome-wide expression patterns. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 95:14863–14868. doi: 10.1073/pnas.95.25.14863

Grallert A, Chan KY, Alonso-Nun˜ ez ML, Madrid M, Biswas A, Alvarez-Tabare´ s I, Connolly Y, Tanaka K, Robertson A, Ortiz JM, Smith DL, Hagan IM. 2013. Removal of centrosomal PP1 by NIMA kinase unlocks the MPF feedback loop to promote mitotic commitment in S. pombe. Current Biology : CB 23:213–222. doi: 10.1016/j. cub.2012.12.039

Haruki H, Nishikawa J, Laemmli UK. 2008. The anchor-away technique: rapid, conditional establishment of yeast mutant phenotypes. Molecular Cell 31:925–932. doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2008.07.020

Hepp MI, Alarcon V, Dutta A, Workman JL, Gutie´ rrez JL. 2014. Nucleosome remodeling by the SWI/SNF complex is enhanced by yeast high mobility group box (HMGB) proteins. Biochimica Et Biophysica Acta 1839: 764–772. doi: 10.1016/j.bbagrm.2014.06.014

Huh WK, Falvo JV, Gerke LC, Carroll AS, Howson RW, Weissman JS, O’Shea EK. 2003. Global analysis of protein localization in budding yeast. Nature 425:686–691. doi: 10.1038/nature02026

Hung MC, Link W. 2011. Protein localization in disease and therapy. Journal of Cell Science 124:3381–3392. doi: 10.1242/jcs.089110 J

oglekar AP, Bouck DC, Molk JN, Bloom KS, Salmon ED. 2006. Molecular architecture of a kinetochoremicrotubule attachment site. Nature Cell Biology 8:581–585. doi: 10.1038/ncb1414

Lambert JP, Mitchell L, Rudner A, Baetz K, Figeys D. 2009. A novel proteomics approach for the discovery of chromatin-associated protein networks. Molecular & Cellular Proteomics : MCP 8:870–882. doi: 10.1074/mcp. M800447-MCP200

Ledesma-Ferna´ndez E, Thorpe PH. 2015. Fluorescent foci quantitation for high-throughput analysis. Journal of Biological Methods 2:22. doi: 10.14440/jbm.2015.62

Lubbock AL, Katz E, Harrison DJ, Overton IM. 2013. TMA Navigator: Network inference, patient stratification and survival analysis with tissue microarray data. Nucleic Acids Research 41:W562–W568. doi: 10.1093/nar/ gkt529

Nagai S, Dubrana K, Tsai-Pflugfelder M, Davidson MB, Roberts TM, Brown GW, Varela E, Hediger F, Gasser SM, Krogan NJ. 2008. Functional targeting of DNA damage to a nuclear pore-associated SUMO-dependent ubiquitin ligase. Science 322:597–602. doi: 10.1126/science.1162790

O´ lafsson G, Thorpe PH. 2015. Synthetic physical interactions map kinetochore regulators and regions sensitive to constitutive Cdc14 localization. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 112:10413–10418. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1506101112

Ramey VH, Wong A, Fang J, Howes S, Barnes G, Nogales E. 2011. Subunit organization in the Dam1 kinetochore complex and its ring around microtubules. Molecular Biology of the Cell 22:4335–4342. doi: 10. 1091/mbc.E11-07-0659

Reid RJ, Gonza´ lez-Barrera S, Sunjevaric I, Alvaro D, Ciccone S, Wagner M, Rothstein R. 2011. Selective ploidy ablation, a high-throughput plasmid transfer protocol, identifies new genes affecting topoisomerase I-induced DNA damage. Genome Research 21:477–486. doi: 10.1101/gr.109033.110

Downloads

Published

2024-09-06

How to Cite

Zainab Mohammed Ali Abdul-Kadhim Shaker, Ghafran Qais Jawad Jarallah, Mohammed Hassan Kalf Saad, & Safaa Ibrahim Kazim Jadou. (2024). Mapping of Protein–Protein Interaction: Identification, Affinity Purification, Tandem Affinity Purification and Quality of Protein Interaction Data. Current Clinical and Medical Education, 2(09), 36–52. Retrieved from https://visionpublisher.info/ccme/article/view/177

Issue

Section

Articles