CrossPlan: systematic planning of genetic crosses to validate mathematical models

Motivation Mathematical models of cellular processes can systematically predict the phenotypes of novel combinations of multi‐gene mutations. Searching for informative predictions and prioritizing them for experimental validation is challenging since the number of possible combinations grows exponentially in the number of mutations. Moreover, keeping track of the crosses needed to make new mutants and planning sequences of experiments is unmanageable when the experimenter is deluged by hundreds of potentially informative predictions to test. Results We present CrossPlan, a novel methodology for systematically planning genetic crosses to make a set of target mutants from a set of source mutants. We base our approach on a generic experimental workflow used in performing genetic crosses in budding yeast. We prove that the CrossPlan problem is NP‐complete. We develop an integer‐linear‐program (ILP) to maximize the number of target mutants that we can make under certain experimental constraints. We apply our method to a comprehensive mathematical model of the protein regulatory network controlling cell division in budding yeast. We also extend our solution to incorporate other experimental conditions such as a delay factor that decides the availability of a mutant and genetic markers to confirm gene deletions. The experimental flow that underlies our work is quite generic and our ILP‐based algorithm is easy to modify. Hence, our framework should be relevant in plant and animal systems as well. Availability and implementation CrossPlan code is freely available under GNU General Public Licence v3.0 at https://github.com/Murali‐group/crossplan

[1]  J. Timmer,et al.  Systems biology: experimental design , 2009, The FEBS journal.

[2]  V. Thorsson,et al.  Discovery of regulatory interactions through perturbation: inference and experimental design. , 1999, Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing. Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing.

[3]  Roland Eils,et al.  Optimal Experimental Design for Parameter Estimation of a Cell Signaling Model , 2009, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[4]  U. Grossniklaus,et al.  The art and design of genetic screens: Arabidopsis thaliana , 2002, Nature Reviews Genetics.

[5]  M. Vingron,et al.  Elucidating regulatory mechanisms downstream of a signaling pathway using informative experiments , 2009, Molecular systems biology.

[6]  Kenneth L. Ho,et al.  Parameter-free model discrimination criterion based on steady-state coplanarity , 2011, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[7]  Drew Endy,et al.  Stimulus Design for Model Selection and Validation in Cell Signaling , 2008, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[8]  T. Ideker,et al.  Translation of Genotype to Phenotype by a Hierarchy of Cell Subsystems , 2016, Cell systems.

[9]  Bernhard O. Palsson,et al.  Iterative Reconstruction of Transcriptional Regulatory Networks: An Algorithmic Approach , 2006, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[10]  Reka Albert,et al.  Combinatorial interventions inhibit TGFβ-driven epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition and support hybrid cellular phenotypes , 2015, npj Systems Biology and Applications.

[11]  Fabio Piano,et al.  RNAi methods and screening: RNAi based high-throughput genetic interaction screening. , 2011, Methods in cell biology.

[12]  F. Doyle,et al.  A benchmark for methods in reverse engineering and model discrimination: problem formulation and solutions. , 2004, Genome research.

[13]  Daniel St Johnston,et al.  The art and design of genetic screens: Drosophila melanogaster , 2002, Nature Reviews Genetics.

[14]  Antonis Papachristodoulou,et al.  Discriminating between rival biochemical network models: three approaches to optimal experiment design , 2010, BMC Systems Biology.

[15]  T. Jaakkola,et al.  Validation and refinement of gene-regulatory pathways on a network of physical interactions , 2005, Genome Biology.

[16]  Roded Sharan,et al.  Experimental design schemes for learning Boolean network models , 2014, Bioinform..

[17]  Aaron N. Chang,et al.  Combinatorial CRISPR-Cas9 screens for de novo mapping of genetic interactions , 2017, Nature Methods.

[18]  T M Murali,et al.  From START to FINISH: computational analysis of cell cycle control in budding yeast , 2015, npj Systems Biology and Applications.

[19]  S. Forsburg The art and design of genetic screens: yeast , 2001, Nature Reviews Genetics.

[20]  N. Novère Quantitative and logic modelling of molecular and gene networks , 2015, Nature Reviews Genetics.

[21]  Jean-Philippe Vert,et al.  A Bayesian active learning strategy for sequential experimental design in systems biology , 2014, BMC Systems Biology.