Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-tj2md Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T15:03:21.903Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

11 - Phenotype state spaces and strategies for exploring them

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 July 2015

Andreas Hadjiprocopis
Affiliation:
The Institute of Cancer Research (ICR), London
Rune Linding
Affiliation:
Technical University of Denmark (DTU)
Florian Markowetz
Affiliation:
Cancer Research UK Cambridge Institute
Michael Boutros
Affiliation:
German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg
Get access

Summary

Introduction

Proteins and their interactions determine how cells behave. Genes are the blueprints for protein synthesis; their activation or suppression determines the absence or presence of a protein which in turn can give rise to further activation or suppression of other genes and proteins. This chemical chain reaction usually involves positive and negative feedback loops and is subjected to stochastic noise and the influence of environmental factors. Moreover, epistasis – the cancellation or modification of a gene's contribution to the phenotype by other genes – is generally the rule rather than the exception in genetics.

Despite all these factors, amazingly robust cell behavior is apparent in many biological systems although it is difficult to be modeled and/or predicted. Building the topology and quantifying the direct and indirect cause–effect (stimulus, expression, activation, behavior) relationships of the reactions leading to the phenotypes – in general, genetic regulatory networks (GRN) – is challenging in at least three ways.

Firstly, how are these relationships described? Traditionally, mathematical models are expressed in terms of transfer functions relating inputs to outputs expressed as a composition of differential equations with a time dimension. We argue though that the cellular signaling networks are probabilistic in nature and that diffusion-based models remain challenging due to lack of knowledge of essential system parameters, such as rate constants. Most importantly, treating intracellular protein and gene interactions as in-vitro chemical reactions might not be safe because the usual assumption of diffusion dynamics namely that of the free movement of a sufficiently large number of molecules is usually the exception rather than the rule due to the very small number of reactant molecules in highly confined and crowded space. Moreover, the concentration of a protein is highly dependent on sub cellular localization and thus the picture of the cell as a homogeneous mix container is simply wrong. Of even more profound impact, many signaling systems are centered on or around scaffolding proteins mimicking solid-state chemical environments and have little or no resemblance to diffusion limited systems.

Type
Chapter
Information
Systems Genetics
Linking Genotypes and Phenotypes
, pp. 214 - 233
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2015

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aldridge, B. B., Saez-Rodriguez, J., Muhlich, J. L., Sorger, P. K. & Lauffenburger, D. A. (2009), ‘Fuzzy logic analysis of kinase pathway crosstalk in TNF/EGF/insulin-induced signaling’, PLoS Computational Biology 5(4), e1000340+.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bak, P. (1996), How Nature Works: The Science of Self-organized Criticality, Springer, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balázsi, G., van Oudenaarden, A. & Collins, J. J. (2011), ‘Cellular decision making and biological noise: from microbes to mammals’, Cell 144(6), 910–925.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barabási, A. L. & Albert, R. (1999), ‘Emergence of scaling in random networks’, Science 286 (5439), 509–512.Google Scholar
Batchelor, E., Loewer, A. & Lahav, G. (2009), ‘The ups and downs of p53: Understanding protein dynamics in single cells’, Nature Reviews Cancer 9(5), 371–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bhardwaj, N., Carson, M. B., Abyzov, A., Yan, K.-K., Lu, H. et al. (2010), ‘Analysis of combinatorial regulation: Scaling of partnerships between regulators with the number of governed targets’, PLoS Computational Biology 6(5), e1000755+.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bialek, W. & Ranganathan, R. (2007), ‘Rediscovering the power of pairwise interactions’.
Bollobas, B. (2001), Random Graphs (Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics), 2nd edn, Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brüggeman, F. J., Westerhoff, H. V., Hoek, J. B. & Kholodenko, B. N. (2002), ‘Modular response analysis of cellular regulatory networks’, Journal of Theoretical Biology 218(4), 507–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chang, H. H., Hemberg, M., Barahona, M., Ingber, D. E. & Huang, S. (2008), ‘Transcriptome-wide noise controls lineage choice in mammalian progenitor cells’, Nature 453(7194), 544–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elowitz, M. B., Levine, A. J., Siggia, E. D. & Swain, P. S. (2002), ‘Stochastic gene expression in a single cell’, Science 297 (5584), 1183–1186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, J. & Henzinger, T. A. (2007), ‘Executable cell biology’, Nature Biotechnology 25(11), 1239–1249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A., Allis, C. & Bernstein, E. (2007), ‘Epigenetics: A landscape takes shape’, Cell 128(4), 635–638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greil, F. & Drossel, B. (2005), ‘Dynamics of critical Kauffman networks under asynchronous stochastic update’, Physical Review Letters 95(4), 048701+.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, S. E., Sawhill, B. K., Wuensche, A. & Kauffman, S. (2002), ‘A model of transcriptional regulatory networks based on biases in the observed regulation rules’, Complexity 7(4), 23–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hordijk, W. & Kauffman, S. A. (2005), ‘Correlation analysis of coupled fitness landscapes’, Complexity 10, 41–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huang, S. (2010), ‘Cell lineage determination in state space: A systems view brings flexibility to dogmatic canonical rules’, PLoS Biology 8(5), e1000380+.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janes, K. A., Albeck, J. G., Gaudet, S., Sorger, P. K., Lauffenburger, D. A. et al. (2005), ‘A systems model of signaling identifies a molecular basis set for cytokine-induced apoptosis’, Science 310 (5754), 1646–1653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janes, K. A., Wang, C.-C. C., Holmberg, K. J., Cabral, K. & Brugge, J. S. (2010), ‘Identifying single-cell molecular programs by stochastic profiling.’, Nature Methods 7(4), 311–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jørgensen, C. & Linding, R. (2010), ‘Simplistic pathways or complex networks?’, Current Opinion in Genetics & Development 20(1), 15–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kadanoff, L., Coppersmith, S. & Aldana, M. (2002), ‘Boolean dynamics with random couplings’, ArXiv Nonlinear Sciences e-prints0204062.Google Scholar
Kauffman, S. (1995), At Home in the Universe: The Search for the Laws ofSelf-Organization and Complexity, Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Kauffman, S. A. (1969), ‘Metabolic stability and epigenesis in randomly constructed genetic nets’, Journal ofTheoretical Biology 22(3), 437–467.Google Scholar
Kauffman, S. A. (1993), The Origins of Order: Self-Organization and Selection in Evolution, Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Langton, C. (1990), ‘Computation at the edge of chaos: phase transitions and emergent computation’, Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena 42(1–3), 12–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linding, R. (2010), ‘Multivariate signal integration’, Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology 11(6), 391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, Y. Y., Slotine, J. J. & Barabasi, A. L. (2011), ‘Controllability of complex networks’, Nature 473(7346), 167–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mora, T. & Bialek, W. (2011), ‘Are biological systems poised at criticality?’, Journal of Statistical Physics 144, 268–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morris, M. K., Saez-Rodriguez, J., Clarke, D. C., Sorger, P. K. & Lauffenburger, D. A. (2011), ‘Training signaling pathway maps to biochemical data with constrained fuzzy logic: quantitative analysis of liver cell responses to inflammatory stimuli’, PLoS Computational Biology 7(3), e1001099+.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muller, F.-J. & Schuppert, A. (2011), ‘Few inputs can reprogram biological networks’, Nature 478(7369), E4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quaranta, V. & Garbett, S. P. (2010), ‘Not all noise is waste’, Nature Methods 7(4), 269–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Socolar, J. E. S. & Kauffman, S. A. (2003), ‘Scaling in ordered and critical random Boolean networks’, Physical Review Letters 90(9), 098701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Socolich, M., Lockless, S. W., Russ, W. P., Lee, H., Gardner, K. H. et al. (2005), ‘Evolutionary information for specifying a protein fold’, Nature 437(7058), 512–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spiller, D. G., Wood, C. D., Rand, D. A. & White, M. R. H. (2010), ‘Measurement of single-cell dynamics’, Nature 465(7299), 736–745.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stadler, P. F. & Schnabel, W. (1992), ‘The landscape of the traveling salesman problem’, Physics Letters A 161, 337–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swain, P. S., Elowitz, M. B. & Siggia, E. D. (2002), ‘Intrinsic and extrinsic contributions to stochasticity in gene expression’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 99(20), 12795-12 800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tkačik, G., Callan, C. G. & Bialek, W. (2008), ‘Information flow and optimization in tran-scriptional regulation’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 105(34), 12 265-12 270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tkačik, G., Walczak, A. M. & Bialek, W. (2009), ‘Optimizing information flow in small genetic networks’, Physical Review E 80, 031920.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waldrop, M. M. (1992), Complexity: The Emerging Science at the Edge ofOrder and Chaos, Simon & Schuster, New York.Google Scholar
Wang, J., Zhang, K., Xu, L. & Wang, E. (2011), ‘Quantifying the Waddington landscape and biological paths for development and differentiation’, Proceedings ofthe National Academy of Sciences ofthe USA 108(20), 8257–8262.Google Scholar
Wright, S. (1932), ‘The roles of mutation, inbreeding, crossbreeding and selection in evolution’, Proceedings of the 6th International Congress of Genetics 1, 356–366.Google Scholar
Yanofsky, C., Horn, V. & Thorpe, D. (1964), ‘Protein structure relationships revealed by mutational analysis’, Science 146(3651), 1593–1594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zamir, E. & Bastiaens, P. I. (2008), ‘Reverse engineering intracellular biochemical networks’, Nature Chemical Biology 4(11), 643–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×