Back

Sample-specific protein-protein interaction networks inferred from transcriptomics and proteomics show high similarities

Zakar-Polyak, E.; Kerepesi, C.

2026-08-10 systems biology
10.64898/2026.08.09.743737 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Contextualized protein-protein interaction networks provide crucial insight into diseases and other biological processes, but for a profound understanding of such processes and their distinct effects on individuals, the protein-protein interactions within individual samples must be investigated. A straightforward approach to estimate the PPI network of a sample is to restrict a general network of known PPIs to the proteins that are found in the sample. Although proteomics methods are becoming more accessible and precise, large-scale and single-cell studies still mainly target characterizing the transcriptomics profile of the samples, which is then often used as an approximation of the protein activities. The correlation of gene expression and protein abundance has been addressed in the past, but information about the deviations of the different omics-based estimates of the PPI networks is still lacking. In this study, we performed a comparative analysis of transcriptomic-based and proteomic-based sample-specific PPI network estimates to fill this gap. We created a framework for a comprehensive and transparent comparison of the two omics levels in two independent datasets, with a special focus on time-related network dynamics. We found that the size-adjusted characteristics of the different omics-based networks are very similar; the overall trend of how they change with time is also often the same, but the rate of the changes typically differs. The characteristics of the nodes present in both types of networks also show high similarity and often different time-related rates of change, but this varies among metrics. These results shed light on the properties of PPI network estimations and advise caution in interpreting them appropriately.

Matching journals

The top 3 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.