Review

Laboratório de Biologia Molecular, Instituto de Ciências Biológicas, Universidade Federal de Goiás, Goiânia, Goiás, 74 000, Brazil

‡Authors contributed equally

Kleber SF Silva‡

*Author for correspondence: Tel.: +55 623 521 1110;

E-mail Address: smallbinho@hotmail.com

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5350-7313

Laboratório de Biologia Molecular, Instituto de Ciências Biológicas, Universidade Federal de Goiás, Goiânia, Goiás, 74 000, Brazil

‡Authors contributed equally

Search for more papers by this author

Raisa M Lima

Laboratório de Biologia Molecular, Instituto de Ciências Biológicas, Universidade Federal de Goiás, Goiânia, Goiás, 74 000, Brazil

Search for more papers by this author

Lívia C Silva

Laboratório de Biologia Molecular, Instituto de Ciências Biológicas, Universidade Federal de Goiás, Goiânia, Goiás, 74 000, Brazil

Search for more papers by this author

Maristela Pereira‡

Laboratório de Biologia Molecular, Instituto de Ciências Biológicas, Universidade Federal de Goiás, Goiânia, Goiás, 74 000, Brazil

‡Authors contributed equally

Search for more papers by this author

Published Online:4 Aug 2023https://doi.org/10.2217/fmb-2022-0274

View article

Abstract

Proteins rarely exert their function by themselves. Protein–protein interactions (PPIs) regulate virtually every biological process that takes place in a cell. Such interactions are targets for new therapeutic agents against all sorts of diseases, through the screening and design of a variety of inhibitors. Here we discuss several aspects of PPIs that contribute to prediction of protein function and drug discovery. As the high-throughput techniques continue to release biological data, targets for fungal therapeutics that rely on PPIs are being proposed worldwide. Computational approaches have reduced the time taken to develop new therapeutic approaches. The near future brings the possibility of developing new PPI and interaction network inhibitors and a revolution in the way we treat fungal diseases.

Keywords:

Papers of special note have been highlighted as: • of interest; •• of considerable interest

References

1. Arkin MR, Wells JA. Small-molecule inhibitors of protein–protein interactions: progressing towards the dream. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 3(4), 301–317 (2004).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
2. Charov K, Burkart MD. A single tool to monitor multiple protein–protein interactions of the Escherichia coli acyl carrier protein. ACS Infect. Dis. 5(9), 1518–1523 (2019).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
3. Vélez-Segarra V, González-Crespo S, Santiago-Cartagena E et al. Protein interactions of the mechanosensory proteins Wsc2 and Wsc3 for stress resistance in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. G3 (Bethesda) 10(9), 3121–3135 (2020).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
4. Tang Z, Takahashi Y. Analysis of protein–protein Interaction by co-IP in human cells. Methods Mol. Biol. 1794, 289–296 (2018).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
5. Nielsen HB, Almeida M, Juncker AS et al. Identification and assembly of genomes and genetic elements in complex metagenomic samples without using reference genomes. Nat. Biotechnol. 32(8), 822–828 (2014).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
6. Jenks JD, Cornely OA, Chen SC-A, Thompson GR, Hoenigl M. Breakthrough invasive fungal infections: who is at risk? Mycoses 63(10), 1021–1032 (2020).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
7. Herce HD, Deng W, Helma J, Leonhardt H, Cardoso MC. Visualization and targeted disruption of protein interactions in living cells. Nat. Commun. 4, 2660 (2013).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
8. La D, Kong M, Hoffman W, Choi YI, Kihara D. Predicting permanent and transient protein–protein interfaces. Proteins 81(5), 805–818 (2013). • Investigates the prediction of protein–protein interactions (PPIs) based on their interfaces.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
9. Han J-DJ, Bertin N, Hao T et al. Evidence for dynamically organized modularity in the yeast protein–protein interaction network. Nature 430(6995), 88–93 (2004).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
10. Wu M, Li X, Kwoh C-K, Ng S-K. A core-attachment based method to detect protein complexes in PPI networks. BMC Bioinformatics 10(1), 169 (2009).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
11. Li X-L, Ng S-K. Biological Data Mining in Protein Interaction Networks. IGI Global, Singapore (2009).
Google Scholar
12. Rao VS, Srinivas K, Sujini GN, Kumar GNS. Protein–protein interaction detection: methods and analysis. Int. J. Proteomics 2014, 1–12 (2014).
Google Scholar
13. Petschnigg J, Snider J, Stagljar I. Interactive proteomics research technologies: recent applications and advances. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 22(1), 50–58 (2011).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
14. E Silva KSF, Lima RM, Baeza LC et al. Interactome of glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase points to the existence of metabolons in Paracoccidioides lutzii. Front. Microbiol. 10, 1537 (2019). •• Exploits the identification of PPIs in a non-model pathogenic species.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
15. Anders U, Gulotti-Georgieva M, Zelger-Paulus S et al. Screening for potential interaction partners with surface plasmon resonance imaging coupled to MALDI mass spectrometry. Anal. Biochem. 624, 114195 (2021).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
16. Demuyser L, Van Genechten W, Mizuno H, Colombo S, Van Dijck P. Introducing fluorescence resonance energy transfer-based biosensors for the analysis of cAMP-PKA signalling in the fungal pathogen Candida glabrata. Cell. Microbiol. 20(10), e12863 (2018).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
17. Ansari M-U-R. Protein–protein interaction assays. In: Proteomics. MR Ansari (Ed.). InTechOpen (2018).
Google Scholar
18. Puig O, Caspary F, Rigaut G et al. The tandem affinity purification (TAP) method: a general procedure of protein complex purification. Methods 24(3), 218–229 (2001).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
19. Dantas GC, Martins PMM, Martins DAB, Gomes E, Ferreira H. A protein expression system for tandem affinity purification in Xanthomonas citri subsp. citri. Braz. J. Microbiol. 47(2), 518–526 (2016).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
20. Platis D, Labrou NE. Affinity chromatography for the purification of therapeutic proteins from transgenic maize using immobilized histamine. J. Sep. Sci. 31(4), 636–645 (2008).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
21. Hannan RD, Hempel WM, Cavanaugh A et al. Affinity purification of mammalian RNA polymerase I. Identification of an associated kinase. J. Biol. Chem. 273(2), 1257–1267 (1998).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
22. Bayram O, Bayram OS, Valerius O, Jöhnk B, Braus GH. Identification of protein complexes from filamentous fungi with tandem affinity purification. Methods Mol. Biol. 944, 191–205 (2012).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
23. Prado RS, Bailão AM, Silva LC et al. Proteomic profile response of Paracoccidioides lutzii to the antifungal argentilactone. Front. Microbiol. 6, 616 (2015).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
24. De Las Rivas J, Fontanillo C. Protein–protein interactions essentials: key concepts to building and analyzing interactome networks. PLoS Comput. Biol. 6(6), e1000807 (2010).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
25. Krogan NJ, Cagney G, Yu H et al. Global landscape of protein complexes in the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Nature 440(7084), 637–643 (2006). •• Exploits a methodology of large-scale identification of PPIs and protein complexes in yeast.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
26. Kaneko A, Umeyama T, Utena-Abe Y, Yamagoe S, Niimi M, Uehara Y. Tcc1p, a novel protein containing the tetratricopeptide repeat motif, interacts with Tup1p to regulate morphological transition and virulence in Candida albicans. Eukaryot. Cell 5(11), 1894–1905 (2006).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
27. Sinha I, Wang Y-M, Philp R, Li C-R, Yap WH, Wang Y. Cyclin-dependent kinases control septin phosphorylation in Candida albicans hyphal development. Dev. Cell 13(3), 421–432 (2007).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
28. Momany M, Talbot NJ. Septins focus cellular growth for host infection by pathogenic fungi. Front. Cell Dev. Biol. 5, 33 (2017).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
29. Blackwell C, Brown JD. The application of tandem-affinity purification to Candida albicans. Methods Mol. Biol. 499, 133–148 (2009).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
30. Tseng T-L, Lai W-C, Jian T et al. Affinity purification of Candida albicans CaCdc4-associated proteins reveals the presence of novel proteins involved in morphogenesis. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 395(1), 152–157 (2010).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
31. Guan G, Wang H, Liang W et al. The mitochondrial protein Mcu1 plays important roles in carbon source utilization, filamentation, and virulence in Candida albicans. Fungal Genet. Biol. 81, 150–159 (2015).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
32. Li X, Robbins N, O’Meara TR, Cowen LE. Extensive functional redundancy in the regulation of Candida albicans drug resistance and morphogenesis by lysine deacetylases Hos2, Hda1, Rpd3 and Rpd31. Mol. Microbiol. 103(4), 635–656 (2017).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
33. Lin J-S, Lai E-M. Protein–protein interactions: co-immunoprecipitation. Methods Mol. Biol. 1615, 211–219 (2017).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
34. Qoronfleh MW, Ren L, Emery D, Perr M, Kaboord B. Use of immunomatrix methods to improve protein–protein interaction detection. J. Biomed. Biotechnol. 2003(5), 291–298 (2003). •• Proposes an immunoprecipitation assay to improve the detection of PPIs.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
35. Zhou M, Li Q, Wang R. Current experimental methods for characterizing protein–protein interactions. ChemMedChem 11(8), 738–756 (2016).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
36. Gerace E, Moazed D. Coimmunoprecipitation of proteins from yeast. Methods Enzymol. 541, 13–26 (2014).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
37. Foltman M, Sanchez-Diaz A. Studying protein–protein interactions in budding yeast using co-immunoprecipitation. Methods Mol. Biol. 1369, 239–256 (2016).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
38. Pianalto KM, Ost KS, Brown HE, Alspaugh JA. Characterization of additional components of the environmental pH-sensing complex in the pathogenic fungus Cryptococcus neoformans. J. Biol. Chem. 293(26), 9995–10008 (2018).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
39. Garnaud C, García-Oliver E, Wang Y et al. The Rim pathway mediates antifungal tolerance in Candida albicans through newly identified Rim101 transcriptional targets, including Hsp90 and Ipt1. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 62(3), e01785–17 (2018).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
40. E Silva KSF, Melo Lima R, de Sousa Lima P et al. Interaction of isocitrate lyase with proteins involved in the energetic metabolism in Paracoccidioides lutzii. J. Fungi 6(4), E309 (2020). • Investigates the interactome of ICL, an enzyme related to pathogenesis in several infectious fungi species.
Google Scholar
41. Hart GT, Ramani AK, Marcotte EM. How complete are current yeast and human protein-interaction networks? Genome Biol. 7(11), 120 (2006).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
42. de Oliveira KM, da Silva Neto BR, Parente JA et al. Intermolecular interactions of the malate synthase of Paracoccidioides spp. BMC Microbiol. 13, 107 (2013).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
43. Schoeters F, Munro CA, d'Enfert C, Van Dijck P. A high-throughput Candida albicans two-hybrid system. mSphere 3(4), e00391–18 (2018).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
44. da Silva CC, Cruz RC, Bucciarelli-Rodriguez M, Vilas-Boas A. Neurospora crassa mat A-2 and mat A-3 proteins weakly interact in the yeast two-hybrid system and affect yeast growth. Genet. Mol. Biol. 32, 354–361 (2009).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
45. Yamamoto K, Tran TNM, Takegawa K, Kaneko Y, Maekawa H. Regulation of mating type switching by the mating type genes and RME1 in Ogataea polymorpha. Sci. Rep. 7(1), 16318 (2017).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
46. Borges CL, Parente JA, Barbosa MS et al. Detection of a homotetrameric structure and protein–protein interactions of Paracoccidioides brasiliensis formamidase lead to new functional insights. FEMS Yeast Res. 10(1), 104–113 (2010).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
47. Muszewska A, Stepniewska-Dziubinska MM, Steczkiewicz K, Pawlowska J, Dziedzic A, Ginalski K. Fungal lifestyle reflected in serine protease repertoire. Sci. Rep. 7(1), 9147 (2017).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
48. Parente JA, Salem-Izacc SM, Santana JM et al. A secreted serine protease of Paracoccidioides brasiliensis and its interactions with fungal proteins. BMC Microbiol. 10(1), 292 (2010).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
49. Côte P, Sulea T, Dignard D, Wu C, Whiteway M. Evolutionary reshaping of fungal mating pathway scaffold proteins. mBio 2(1), e00230–00210 (2011).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
50. Szklarczyk D, Gable AL, Nastou KC et al. The STRING database in 2021: customizable protein–protein networks, and functional characterization of user-uploaded gene/measurement sets. Nucleic Acids Res. 49(D1), D605–D612 (2021).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
51. Ngounou Wetie AG, Sokolowska I, Woods AG, Roy U, Loo JA, Darie CC. Investigation of stable and transient protein–protein interactions: past, present, and future. Proteomics 13(3–4), 538–557 (2013).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
52. Ding Z, Kihara D. Computational methods for predicting protein–protein interactions using various protein features. Curr. Protoc. Protein Sci. 93(1), e62 (2018).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
53. Kini RM, Evans HJ. Prediction of potential protein–protein interaction sites from amino acid sequence. Identification of a fibrin polymerization site. FEBS Lett. 385(1–2), 81–86 (1996).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
54. Sprinzak E, Margalit H. Correlated sequence-signatures as markers of protein–protein interaction. J. Mol. Biol. 311(4), 681–692 (2001).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
55. Xue Y, Liu Z, Gao X et al. GPS-SNO: computational prediction of protein S-nitrosylation sites with a modified GPS algorithm. PLoS ONE 5(6), e11290 (2010).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
56. Kozakov D, Hall DR, Xia B et al. The ClusPro web server for protein–protein docking. Nat. Protoc. 12(2), 255–278 (2017). • Describes a robust online protein–protein docking server.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
57. Zhu X, Mitchell JC. KFC2: a knowledge-based hot spot prediction method based on interface solvation, atomic density, and plasticity features. Proteins 79(9), 2671–2683 (2011). • Describes a server largely used to predict hotspot residues within the interface of interaction.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
58. Vangone A, Spinelli R, Scarano V, Cavallo L, Oliva R. COCOMAPS: a web application to analyze and visualize contacts at the interface of biomolecular complexes. Bioinformatics 27(20), 2915–2916 (2011).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
59. Anfinsen CB. Principles that govern the folding of protein chains. Science 181(4096), 223–230 (1973).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
60. Bock JR, Gough DA. Predicting protein–protein interactions from primary structure. Bioinformatics 17(5), 455–460 (2001).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
61. Shen J, Zhang J, Luo X et al. Predicting protein–protein interactions based only on sequences information. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 104(11), 4337–4341 (2007).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
62. Wass MN, Fuentes G, Pons C, Pazos F, Valencia A. Towards the prediction of protein interaction partners using physical docking. Mol. Syst. Biol. 7, 469 (2011).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
63. Juan D, Pazos F, Valencia A. High-confidence prediction of global interactomes based on genome-wide coevolutionary networks. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105(3), 934–939 (2008).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
64. Chen X-W, Liu M. Prediction of protein–protein interactions using random decision forest framework. Bioinformatics 21(24), 4394–4400 (2005).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
65. Wells JA, McClendon CL. Reaching for high-hanging fruit in drug discovery at protein–protein interfaces. Nature 450(7172), 1001–1009 (2007).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
66. Nikolskaya AN, Arighi CN, Huang H, Barker WC, Wu CH. PIRSF family classification system for protein functional and evolutionary analysis. Evol. Bioinform. Online 2, 197–209 (2007).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
67. Gabanyi MJ, Berman HM. Protein structure annotation resources. In: Structural Proteomics. Owens RJ (Ed.). Springer, NY, USA, 3–20 (2014).
Google Scholar
68. Lopez D, Pazos F. Gene ontology functional annotations at the structural domain level. Proteins 76(3), 598–607 (2009).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
69. Deng M, Zhang K, Mehta S, Chen T, Sun F. Prediction of protein function using protein–protein interaction data. Proc. IEEE Comput. Soc. Bioinform. Conf. 1, 197–206 (2002).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
70. Zhang S-W, Wei Z-G. Some remarks on prediction of protein–protein interaction with machine learning. Med. Chem. 11(3), 254–264 (2015).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
71. Titz B, Schlesner M, Uetz P. What do we learn from high-throughput protein interaction data? Expert Rev. Proteomics 1(1), 111–121 (2004).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
72. Schwikowski B, Uetz P, Fields S. A network of protein–protein interactions in yeast. Nat. Biotechnol. 18(12), 1257–1261 (2000).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
73. Hishigaki H, Nakai K, Ono T, Tanigami A, Takagi T. Assessment of prediction accuracy of protein function from protein–protein interaction data. Yeast 18(6), 523–531 (2001).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
74. Chua HN, Sung W-K, Wong L. Exploiting indirect neighbours and topological weight to predict protein function from protein–protein interactions. Bioinformatics 22(13), 1623–1630 (2006).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
75. Piovesan D, Giollo M, Ferrari C, Tosatto SCE. Protein function prediction using guilty by association from interaction networks. Amino Acids 47(12), 2583–2592 (2015).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
76. Nabieva E, Jim K, Agarwal A, Chazelle B, Singh M. Whole-proteome prediction of protein function via graph-theoretic analysis of interaction maps. Bioinformatics 21(Suppl. 1), i302–i310 (2005).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
77. Pereira-Leal JB, Enright AJ, Ouzounis CA. Detection of functional modules from protein interaction networks. Proteins 54(1), 49–57 (2003).
Google Scholar
78. Moosavi S, Rahgozar M, Rahimi A. Protein function prediction using neighbor relativity in protein–protein interaction network. Comput. Biol. Chem. 43, 11–16 (2013).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
79. Zhao B, Hu S, Li X, Zhang F, Tian Q, Ni W. An efficient method for protein function annotation based on multilayer protein networks. Hum. Genomics 10(1), 33 (2016).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
80. Joshi T, Chen Y, Becker JM, Alexandrov N, Xu D. Genome-scale gene function prediction using multiple sources of high-throughput data in yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae. OMICS 8(4), 322–333 (2004).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
81. Nevola L, Giralt E. Modulating protein–protein interactions: the potential of peptides. Chem. Commun. 51(16), 3302–3315 (2015).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
82. Mackay JP, Sunde M, Lowry JA, Crossley M, Matthews JM. Protein interactions: is seeing believing? Trends Biochem. Sci. 32(12), 530–531 (2007).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
83. Chatr-Aryamontri A, Ceol A, Licata L, Cesareni G. Protein interactions: integration leads to belief. Trends Biochem. Sci. 33(6), 241–242 (2008).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
84. Chothia C, Janin J. Principles of protein–protein recognition. Nature 256(5520), 705–708 (1975).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
85. Talavera D, Robertson DL, Lovell SC. Characterization of protein–protein interaction interfaces from a single species. PLoS ONE 6(6), e21053 (2011).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
86. Raimundo BC, Oslob JD, Braisted AC et al. Integrating fragment assembly and biophysical methods in the chemical advancement of small-molecule antagonists of IL-2: an approach for inhibiting protein–protein interactions. J. Med. Chem. 47(12), 3111–3130 (2004).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
87. Wang Y, Coulombe R, Cameron DR et al. Crystal structure of the E2 transactivation domain of human papillomavirus type 11 bound to a protein interaction inhibitor. J. Biol. Chem. 279(8), 6976–6985 (2004).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
88. Brown SP, Hajduk PJ. Effects of conformational dynamics on predicted protein druggability. ChemMedChem 1(1), 70–72 (2006).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
89. Higueruelo AP, Jubb H, Blundell TL. Protein–protein interactions as druggable targets: recent technological advances. Curr. Opin. Pharmacol. 13(5), 791–796 (2013).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
90. Vlieghe P, Lisowski V, Martinez J, Khrestchatisky M. Synthetic therapeutic peptides: science and market. Drug Discov. Today 15(1), 40–56 (2010).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
91. Lima RM, E Silva KSF, Silva LDC et al. A structure-based approach for the discovery of inhibitors against methylcitrate synthase of Paracoccidioides lutzii. J. Biomol. Struct. Dyn. 40(19), 9361–9373 (2022).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
92. E Silva KSF, Melo Lima R, de Sousa Lima P et al. Interaction of isocitrate lyase with proteins involved in the energetic metabolism in Paracoccidioides lutzii. J. Fungi 6(4), 309 (2020).
Google Scholar
93. Thornton BP, Johns A, Al-Shidhani R et al. Identification of functional and druggable sites in Aspergillus fumigatus essential phosphatases by virtual screening. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 20(18), 4636 (2019).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
94. Li H, Li Y, Ni F, Su Z. Inhibition of pathogenically-related morphologic transition in Candida albicans by disrupting Cdc42 binding to its effectors. Adv. Exp. Med. Biol. 611, 471–472 (2009).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
95. Zhang W, Collinet B, Graille M et al. Crystal structures of the Gon7/Pcc1 and Bud32/Cgi121 complexes provide a model for the complete yeast KEOPS complex. Nucleic Acids Res. 43(6), 3358–3372 (2015). • Shows an example of a peptide that inhibits fungal PPIs.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar

Vol. 18, No. 15

Metrics

Downloaded 51 times

History

Received 6 December 2022

Accepted 6 April 2023

Published online 4 August 2023

Published in print October 2023

Information

Keywords

Financial & competing interests disclosure

The authors have no relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. This includes employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, grants or patents received or pending, or royalties.

No writing assistance was utilized in the production of this manuscript.

PDF download

State of the art in protein–protein interactions within the fungi kingdom

Abstract

References