Back

Phylogenomic prediction of interaction networks in the presence of gene duplication

Gatts, T. C.; deRoux, C.; Lane, L. E.; Berggren, M.; Rehmann, E. A.; Zak, E.; Bartel, T.; L'Argent, L.; Sloan, D. B.; Forsythe, E. S.

2024-08-08 genomics
10.1101/2024.08.06.606904 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Assigning gene function from genome sequences is a rate-limiting step in molecular biology research. A proteins position within an interaction network can potentially provide insights into its molecular mechanisms. Phylogenetic analysis of evolutionary rate covariation (ERC) in protein sequence has been shown to be effective for large-scale prediction of functional relationships and interactions. However, gene duplication, gene loss, and other sources of phylogenetic incongruence are barriers for analyzing ERC on a genome-wide basis. Here, we developed ERCnet, a bioinformatic program designed to overcome these challenges, facilitating efficient all- vs-all ERC analyses for large protein sequence datasets. We simulated proteome datasets and found that ERCnet achieves combined false positive and negative error rates well below 10% and that our novel branch-by-branch length measurements outperforms root-to-tip approaches in most cases, offering a valuable new strategy for performing ERC. We also compiled a sample set of 35 angiosperm genomes to test the performance of ERCnet on empirical data, including its sensitivity to user-defined analysis parameters such as input dataset size and branch-length measurement strategy. We investigated the overlap between ERCnet runs with different species samples to understand how species number and composition affect predicted interactions and to identify the protein sets that consistently exhibit ERC across angiosperms. Our systematic exploration of the performance of ERCnet provides a roadmap for design of future ERC analyses to predict functional interactions in a wide array of genomic datasets. ERCnet code is freely available at https://github.com/EvanForsythe/ERCnet.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.