Determining which proteins interact together is crucial to a systems-level understanding of the cell. Recently, algorithms based on Direct Coupling Analysis (DCA) pairwise maximum-entropy models have allowed to identify interaction partners among the paralogs of ubiquitous prokaryotic proteins families, starting from sequence data alone. Since DCA allows to infer the three-dimensional structure of protein complexes, its success in predicting protein-protein interactions could be mainly based on contacting residues coevolving to remain physicochemically complementary. However, interacting proteins often possess similar evolutionary histories , which also gives rise to correlations among their sequences . What is the role of purely phylogenetic correlations in the performance of DCA-based methods to infer interaction partners? To address this question, we employ controlled synthetic data that only involves phylogeny and no interactions or contacts. We find that DCA accurately identifies the pairs of synthetic sequences that only share evolutionary history. It performs as well as methods explicitly based on sequence similarity, and even slightly better with large and accurate training sets. We further demonstrate the ability of these various methods to correctly predict pairings among actual paralogous proteins with genome proximity but no known direct physical interaction, which illustrates the importance of phylogenetic correlations in real data. However, for actually interacting and strongly coevolving proteins, DCA and mutual information outperform sequence similarity .
Determining which proteins interact together is crucial to a systems-level understanding of the cell. Recently, algorithms based on Direct Coupling Analysis (DCA) pairwise maximum-entropy models have allowed to identify interaction partners among paralogous proteins from sequence data . This success of DCA at predicting protein-protein interactions could be mainly based on its known ability to identify pairs of residues that are in contact in the three-dimensional structure of protein complexes and that coevolve to remain physicochemically complementary. However, interacting proteins possess similar evolutionary histories . What is the role of purely phylogenetic correlations in the performance of DCA-based methods to infer interaction partners? To address this question, we employ controlled synthetic data that only involve phylogeny and no interactions or contacts. We find that DCA accurately identifies the pairs of synthetic sequences that share evolutionary history. While phylogenetic correlations confound the identification of contacting residues by DCA, they are thus useful to predict interacting partners among paralogs. We find that DCA performs as well as phylogenetic methods to this end, and slightly better than them with large and accurate training sets. Employing DCA or phylogenetic methods within an Iterative Pairing Algorithm (IPA) allows to predict pairs of evolutionary partners without a training set. We demonstrate the ability of these various methods to correctly predict pairings among real paralogous proteins with genome proximity but no known physical interaction, illustrating the importance of phylogenetic correlations in natural data. However, for physically interacting and strongly coevolving proteins, DCA and mutual information outperform phylogenetic methods. We discuss how to distinguish physically interacting proteins from those only sharing evolutionary history .
R
the paralogs of ubiquitous prokaryotic proteins families, starting
paralogous proteins
R
alone. Since DCA allows to infer the three-dimensional structure of protein complexes, its success in
. This success of DCA at
R
contacting residues coevolving
its known ability to identify pairs of residues that are in contact in the three-dimensional structure of protein complexes and that coevolve
D
often
D
, which also gives rise to correlations among their sequences
R
involves
involve
D
only
R
It
While phylogenetic correlations confound the identification of contacting residues by DCA, they are thus useful to predict interacting partners among paralogs. We find that DCA
R
methods explicitly based on sequence similarity, and even slightly better
phylogenetic methods to this end, and slightly better than them
R
We further
Employing DCA or phylogenetic methods within an Iterative Pairing Algorithm (IPA) allows to predict pairs of evolutionary partners without a training set. We
R
actual
real
D
direct
R
which illustrates
illustrating
R
real
natural
R
actually
physically
R
sequence similarity
phylogenetic methods. We discuss how to distinguish physically interacting proteins from those only sharing evolutionary history