It can be expected that one-step bait fishing is effective for interactions with slow kinetics—here termed static interactions—whereas it will miss interactions with fast kinetics, which we call dynamic interactions. However, if the affinity is sufficiently high, dynamic interactions should be detectable by two-step bait fishing. On the other hand, two-step bait fishing will selleck screening library probably miss static interactions, because the exogenously added bait might not be able to displace its already bound endogenous counterpart. Detection of interactions by both one-step

and two-step bait fishing can occur if either the interaction is of low dynamics resulting in enough stability for detection EPZ004777 cost by one-step bait fishing but allowing enough exchange for prey binding to the exogenously added bait in two-step bait fishing, or if the interaction is static but prey protein with free bait binding sites is present in wild type cells and thus accessible to the exogenously added bait in two-step bait fishing. As a further difference, in two-step bait fishing the prey proteins are purified from genetically unmodified cells, which excludes effects of chromosomal integration of the tagging vector at the locus of the bait protein upon the expression of interaction partners. This might be of particular importance as

interacting proteins are often located adjacent to each other in the genome or even in one operon [62]. Since the methods detect different Amrubicin subsets of interactions, we applied both of them to all proteins under investigation. A similar strategy,

the combination of MAP (mixing after purification)-SILAC and PAM (purification after mixing)-SILAC was developed by Wang and Huang [63] and demonstrated to outperform standard SILAC experiments for the identification of protein interactions with a broad range of kinetics. Interaction analysis of the Hbt. salinarum taxis signal transduction system Initially, the interactions of the ten known Hbt.salinarum Che proteins were analyzed. Afterwards six additional proteins that were found to be interaction partners were used as baits to confirm the detected interactions and to extend the interaction network (Additional file 5). Overall, the experiments resulted in 5505 reliable protein identifications (ProteinProphet [64]; probability > 0.95), detecting 597 unique proteins (Additional file 3). Of the identifications made, 267 were classified as interactions. Applying the spoke model [65] to derive binary interactions from the copurification data resulted in a final set of 201 unique interactions. The resulting interaction network is depicted in Figure 3. For the sake of clarity, only interactions discussed in the text are included. The complete network is available from Additional file 6.