2v = interactions found with 2 vector pairs. Stf = Orf314. Of the 73 interactions that were found in only one combination, 10 have been published previously, demonstrating that they are useful too. In fact, 16 out of 30 previously found interactions were also found in our screen, i.e. 53%. Note that three previously found interactions (Xis-Xis, Xis-Int, and SieB-Esc) could not be tested since we were unable to obtain ORF clones of J, Xis, NinH, and Esc (which is encoded within SieB). find more Prey counts There are other criteria that can
be used to score interactions. One of them is the number of times a prey protein is found. This “”prey count”" indicates whether a protein interacts very specifically (low prey count) or more unspecifically and thus promiscously. Vistusertib order Proteins with high prey counts are more likely false positives, and hence we removed these interactions with prey count > 5 from further analysis (see Additional file 1: Tables S2 and S3). However, this was not generally true in our study: of the preys that were found 1 to 3 times, 12 were
found among the “”gold-standard”" literature interactions. Of the preys that were found 4 to 5 times, 9 were involved in such gold-standard interactions (5 interactions were shared in both groups). Protein coverage Among the 73 lambda proteins listed in the Uniprot database (J02459), 51 were found to be involved in interactions (Figure 3), which represents 70% of the proteome. 15 proteins were found only in one interaction (CIII, Ea10, Ea59, Exo, FII, Kil, L, Nu3, Orf64, Orf60a, R, Rz, T, W, and Xis) but 7 proteins were found to be involved in 10 or more interactions (namely U, Bet, Ea8.5, Nu1, A, Int, and G). Hence the former are more specific and latter more promiscous
and thus less reliable. Interestingly, several proteins were conspicuously absent from Leukocyte receptor tyrosine kinase our list of interactions, primarily proteins of head and tail assembly (B, C, I, J, Stf, and Tfa) as well as the Cytoskeletal Signaling inhibitor poorly understood proteins NinG, NinH, Orf221 (NinI), Orf290 (NinC), and SieB (see discussion). Figure 3 The protein interaction network of phage lambda. Interactions from this study have been integrated with previously published interactions (“”literature”"). Nodes in the network represent proteins and are colored according to their functional class (see color key). The protein-protein interactions are indicated by lines (“”edges”"). The edge color represents the source of the interactions, e.g., all red edges are previously reported interactions, all blue interactions were identified in our two-hybrid study, and all green interactions are previously known and are reproduced in our study. Functional specificity We grouped all lambda proteins in 9 groups, namely virion head, virion tail, transcription, replication, recombination, lysis, lysogenic conversion, others with known function, and unknown (Table 4).