Active Interaction Mapping Reveals the Hierarchical Organization of Autophagy
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Resource Active Interaction Mapping Reveals the Hierarchical Organization of Autophagy Graphical Abstract Authors Michael H. Kramer, Jean-Claude Farre´ , Koyel Mitra, ..., J. Michael Cherry, Suresh Subramani, Trey Ideker Correspondence [email protected] (S.S.), [email protected] (T.I.) In Brief Kramer et al. present a general procedure that guides molecular interaction mapping to assemble a hierarchical model of any biological system. Application to autophagy reveals the hierarchical organization of this process, including many new biological components and functions. This work provides an archetype for future studies in systems biology. Highlights d Diverse -omics data integrated to assemble a unified hierarchical model of autophagy d Post hoc analysis prioritizes the most informative future data types d Consequently, 156,364 genetic interactions measured in autophagy-activating conditions d Multiple new functions involve Gyp1, Atg24, Atg26, Ssd1, Did4, Stp22, and others Kramer et al., 2017, Molecular Cell 65, 761–774 February 16, 2017 ª 2017 Elsevier Inc. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.molcel.2016.12.024 Molecular Cell Resource Active Interaction Mapping Reveals the Hierarchical Organization of Autophagy Michael H. Kramer,1,4 Jean-Claude Farre´ ,2,4 Koyel Mitra,1 Michael Ku Yu,1 Keiichiro Ono,1 Barry Demchak,1 Katherine Licon,1 Mitchell Flagg,1 Rama Balakrishnan,3 J. Michael Cherry,3 Suresh Subramani,2,* and Trey Ideker1,5,* 1Department of Medicine 2Section of Molecular Biology, Division of Biological Sciences University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093, USA 3Department of Genetics, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94304, USA 4Co-first author 5Lead Contact *Correspondence: [email protected] (S.S.), [email protected] (T.I.) http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.molcel.2016.12.024 SUMMARY 2004; Malleshaiah et al., 2010). Model predictions are system- atically compared to laboratory measurements, with discrep- We have developed a general progressive proced- ancies used to improve the model and design further ure, Active Interaction Mapping, to guide assembly experiments. of the hierarchy of functions encoding any biolo- Initially, formulating a model can be laborious, requires that gical system. Using this process, we assemble an much is already known about the system, and may be biased to- ontology of functions comprising autophagy, a cen- ward well-studied components. Alternatively, many studies have tral recycling process implicated in numerous dis- sought to construct models of biological systems directly from systematic datasets (Ergun€ et al., 2007; Ho et al., 2002). eases. A first-generation model, built from existing Saccharomyces Genome-scale data, including profiles of mRNAs, proteins or gene networks in , captures most metabolites, and gene and protein interactions, are analyzed to known autophagy components in broad relation to infer a network of genes describing the system (Behrends vesicle transport, cell cycle, and stress response. et al., 2010; Havugimana et al., 2012; Kim et al., 2011; Lefebvre Systematic analysis identifies synthetic-lethal inter- et al., 2012; Picotti et al., 2013). Such network models have been actions as most informative for further experiments; increasingly used to describe key biological systems, including consequently, we saturate the model with 156,364 tissue specificity (Greene et al., 2015), cell differentiation (Cahan such measurements across autophagy-activating et al., 2014), and diseases such as cancer (Carro et al., 2010; conditions. These targeted interactions provide Creixell et al., 2015; Leiserson et al., 2015). more information about autophagy than all previous At this juncture, we see two challenges. First, biological sys- datasets, producing a second-generation ontology tems do not merely consist of flat networks of genes; they are exquisitely hierarchical in nature. Models should seek to cap- of 220 functions. Approximately half are previously ture this hierarchy, which extends over multiple scales from unknown; we confirm roles for Gyp1 at the phago- nucleotides (<1 nm scale) to proteins (1–10 nm), protein com- phore-assembly site, Atg24 in cargo engulfment, plexes (10–100 nm), cellular processes (100 nm), organelles Atg26 in cytoplasm-to-vacuole targeting, and Ssd1, (1 mm), cells (1–10 mm), tissues (100 mm–100 mm), and com- Did4, and others in selective and non-selective auto- plex organisms (>1 m). Second, while the field has taken a phagy. The procedure and autophagy hierarchy are foundational step by enabling the construction of models at http://atgo.ucsd.edu/. directly from data rather than only literature, a next step will be to determine how to iteratively improve these models with the most informative new data. The ability to rationally INTRODUCTION motivate and design new -omics datasets is sorely needed in genomics; far too many large-scale experiments are per- A key promise of systems biology is to advance our understand- formed simply because one can, without justification or guid- ing of biological systems by combining genome-scale data with ance for why those experiments might lead to an improved model building in a virtuous cycle (Ideker et al., 2001a; Kitano, biological understanding. 2002). New genomics data improve the biological model and, Toward the first challenge, a hierarchical biological model in turn, analysis of the model informs collection of new datasets. already in widespread use is the Gene Ontology (GO) (Ashburner Systems biology typically surveys the literature to assemble et al., 2000). Through extensive literature curation efforts, GO knowledge of specific molecules, interactions, and reactions aims to factor the cell into a complete hierarchy of cellular com- involved in a biological system, then uses this knowledge to ponents and processes, each represented by a GO ‘‘term.’’ initialize a computational model (Covert et al., 2004; Davidson Recently, we showed that an ontology of the cell very much et al., 2002; Ideker et al., 2001b; Karr et al., 2012; King et al., like GO could be automatically constructed from diverse Molecular Cell 65, 761–774, February 16, 2017 ª 2017 Elsevier Inc. 761 A Integrate data to best capture curated knowledge ii Protein-protein interactions Modeling i Genetic interactions Initialize Convert network to with public iii hierarchical model data Co-expression interactions 191 transcription factors, unknown relationship Regulators of casein kinase 2 bud neck proteins AtgO:220 autophagy membrane trafficking catalytic subunits and related processes promotion of condensin recruitment transcriptional membrane protein Rho1-dependent to replication fork 8 response to iron blockage site localization and polarized cell growth insertion / stress depletion salt tolerance kinases Golgi-localized, response ubiquitin related CAMK/CMGC kinases GET complex actin-regulating γ-adaptin ear palmitoylated AAA ATPases and process and kinase family spore morphogenesis vacuolar membrane cytoskeletal functions homology, Arf-binding specificity factors AtgO:185 vacuolar trafficking regulation proteins ankyrin proteins genes, unknown nucleosome staurosporine transport of repeat-containing, casein kinase I-like CDK9-related acetyltransferase of Atg19-receptor subgroup resistance pathway palmitoyl transferase MAP kinase and a proteins cyclin-dependent ARFs and ARF H4 components and cargos proteins MAPK inactivator (no plasma EGO complex kinases binding proteins actin related proteins Mapping membrane-associated subunits + Pib2, Pep7 ADP ribosylation piccolo NuA4 histone published casein kinase I-like EGO complex factors actin and nucleation acetyltransferase membrane trafficking, relationship) proteins subunits and Pib2 guanine nucleotide factor complex subunits cell growth and stress negative regulation of ADP ribosylation exchange factors for Sec7-Arf1 golgi responses I Hog1 signaling Gtr1-Gtr2 GTPase factors involved in ARFs vesicle transport complex Rho1 GTPase and Golgi vesicular regulation complex effector trafficking eIF2B subunits and chromosomal BET5 TRS23 regulator passenger complex regulation of TRS33 membrane trafficking, subunits polyamine uptake TRS130 TRS20 TRAPP Complex cell growth and stress eIF2B subunits BET3 responses II TRS31 TRS85 AtgO:138 late secretory GEA1 pathway (vesicle GYP1 SYS1 Ubp3-Bre5 ubiquitin GARP complex vacuolar H+-ATPase trafficking, docking ATG32 protease complex subunits GET3 GYP7 and endosome to and fusion) ATG22 CLG1 BRE5 Ypt31/Ypt32 family golgi traffic SEC18 VPS1 RAV1 UBP3 VPS51 VPS52 TLG2 PEP7 Rab GTPases SEC17 RIC1 VPS45 YPT32 membrane fusion conserved oligomeric 232 V-ATPase, V0 golgi (COG) complex PEP8 HOPS/CORVET AtgO:140 domain subunits complexes and COG4 VMA3 localization YPT53 YPT31 Vma12/Vma22 VMA11 VPS8 assembly complex YPT52 COG2 COG1 COG5 retromer complex VPS9 Align with GO, VMA22 VPH2 VPS3 COG8 cargo selection V-ATPase nucleotide COG3 COG6 COG7 subunits binding V1 subunits VTC1 vacuolar transporter HSV2 UTH1 VPS29 VMA2 VMA1 HOPS complex VTC4 chaperone complex VTI1 late secretory Q-snares VPS21 VPS33 VTC3 vacuolar transporter pathway / vacuolar VPS41 chaperone complex, membrane dynamics, PEP3 PKC1 REG1 SSK2 VTC2 VAM3 vacuolar docking and VAM3 cytosolic facing cell growth and stress PEP12 VAM7 VPS16 PCL1 responses fusion PEP5 CDC7 CDC28 Other ‘omics datasets componentsHierarchical model ATG32 GTR2 PDK1 homolog YPT7 BCK1 GCN3 Observe new VAM6 ATG20 ATG4 PKH1 Mon1-Ccz1 complex ATG18 KIN4 ATG29 kinases GEA1 HSL1 Intraluminal vesicle PTC6 KES1 PTC6 PKH2 ATG17 YAK1 ATG2 neck formation CCZ1 MON1