Reasoning about non-immediate triggers in biological networks

Modeling molecular interactions in signalling networks is important from various perspectives such as predicting side effects of drugs, explaining unusual cellular behavior and drug and therapy design. Various formal languages have been proposed for representing and reasoning about molecular interactions. The interactions are modeled as triggered events in most of the approaches. The triggering of events is assumed to be immediate: once an interaction is triggered, it should occur immediately. Although working well for engineering systems, this assumption poses a serious problem in modeling biological systems. Our knowledge about biological systems is inherently incomplete, thus molecular interactions are constantly elaborated and refined at different granularity of abstraction. The model of immediate triggers can not consistently deal with this refinement. In this paper we propose an action language to address this problem. We show that the language allows for refinements of biological knowledge, although at a higher cost in terms of complexity.

[1]  V. N. Reddy,et al.  Qualitative analysis of biochemical reaction systems , 1996, Comput. Biol. Medicine.

[2]  Aviv Regev,et al.  Representation and Simulation of Biochemical Processes Using the pi-Calculus Process Algebra , 2000, Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing.

[3]  Salim Khan,et al.  A Multi-Agent System-driven AI Planning Approach to Biological Pathway Discovery , 2003, ICAPS.

[4]  Krzysztof Kuchcinski,et al.  The WITAS Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Project , 2000, ECAI.

[5]  Michael Gelfond,et al.  An A Prolog decision support system for the Space Shuttle , 2001, Answer Set Programming.

[6]  Albert R. Meyer,et al.  The Equivalence Problem for Regular Expressions with Squaring Requires Exponential Space , 1972, SWAT.

[7]  Chitta Baral,et al.  Reasoning about Triggered Actions in AnsProlog and Its Application to Molecular Interactions in Cells , 2004, KR.

[8]  Laura Giordano,et al.  Reasoning about Actions in Dynamic Linear Time Temporal Logic , 2001, Log. J. IGPL.

[9]  Tran Cao Son,et al.  From theory to practice: the UTEP robot in the AAAI 96 and AAAI 97 robot contests , 1998, AGENTS '98.

[10]  Diego Calvanese,et al.  Reasoning about Actions and Planning in LTL Action Theories , 2002, KR.

[11]  Robert L. Grossman,et al.  Timed Automata , 1999, CAV.

[12]  E. Allen Emerson,et al.  Temporal and Modal Logic , 1991, Handbook of Theoretical Computer Science, Volume B: Formal Models and Sematics.

[13]  Celia Wrathall,et al.  Complete Sets and the Polynomial-Time Hierarchy , 1976, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[14]  Barbara Dunin-Keplicz,et al.  Creating Collective Intention through Dialogue , 2001, Log. J. IGPL.

[15]  Marek J. Sergot,et al.  A logic-based calculus of events , 1989, New Generation Computing.

[16]  Murray Shanahan,et al.  Representing Continuous Change in the Event Calculus , 1990, ECAI.

[17]  Chitta Baral,et al.  Reasoning and hypothesizing about signaling networks , 2006 .

[18]  Stuart K. Kim,et al.  Signaling specificity: the RTK/RAS/MAP kinase pathway in metazoans. , 1999, Trends in genetics : TIG.

[19]  Michael Thielscher,et al.  Reasoning about Continuous Processes , 1996, AAAI/IAAI, Vol. 1.

[20]  Carolyn L. Talcott,et al.  Pathway logic modeling of protein functional domains in signal transduction , 2003, Computational Systems Bioinformatics. CSB2003. Proceedings of the 2003 IEEE Bioinformatics Conference. CSB2003.

[21]  Michael Gelfond,et al.  The USA-Advisor: A Case Study in Answer Set Planning , 2001, LPNMR.

[22]  Alexei Lapouchnian,et al.  Interfacing Indigolog and OAA: A Toolkit for Advanced Multiagent Applications , 2002, Appl. Artif. Intell..

[23]  Raymond Reiter,et al.  Natural Actions, Concurrency and Continuous Time in the Situation Calculus , 1996, KR.

[24]  Gerhard Lakemeyer,et al.  cc-Golog: Towards More Realistic Logic-Based Robot Controllers , 2000, AAAI/IAAI.

[25]  Michael Gelfond,et al.  Planning with the USA-Advisor , 2002 .

[26]  J. Van Leeuwen,et al.  Handbook of theoretical computer science - Part A: Algorithms and complexity; Part B: Formal models and semantics , 1990 .

[27]  Erik Sandewall,et al.  Combining Logic and Differential Equations for Describing Real-World Systems , 1989, KR.

[28]  Michael Thielscher,et al.  Representing the Knowledge of a Robot , 2000, KR.

[29]  Antonis C. Kakas,et al.  Reasoning about Actions, Narratives and Ramification , 1997, Electron. Trans. Artif. Intell..

[30]  R. Reiter,et al.  Temporal reasoning in the situation calculus , 1994 .

[31]  Vincent Danos,et al.  Modeling and querying biomolecular interaction networks , 2004, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[32]  Enrico Giunchiglia,et al.  Nonmonotonic causal theories , 2004, Artif. Intell..

[33]  Alex M. Andrew,et al.  Knowledge in Action: Logical Foundations for Specifying and Implementing Dynamical Systems , 2002 .

[34]  Friedemann Mattern,et al.  Detecting causal relationships in distributed computations: In search of the holy grail , 1994, Distributed Computing.

[35]  Murray Shanahan,et al.  A Logical Account of the Common Sense Informatic Situation for a Mobile Robot , 1998, Electron. Trans. Artif. Intell..

[36]  Toshihisa Takagi,et al.  Knowledge representation of signal transduction pathways , 2001, Bioinform..

[37]  Michael Gelfond,et al.  Building knowledge systems in a-prolog , 2005 .

[38]  John McCarthy,et al.  SOME PHILOSOPHICAL PROBLEMS FROM THE STANDPOINT OF ARTI CIAL INTELLIGENCE , 1987 .

[39]  Chitta Baral,et al.  A knowledge based approach for representing and reasoning about signaling networks , 2004, ISMB/ECCB.

[40]  A. Kakas,et al.  "Reasoning about Actions, Narratives and Ramifications" , 1997 .

[41]  John F. Kolen,et al.  A Computatuional Analysis of the Reachability Problem for a Class of Hybrid Dynamical Systems , 1996, Hybrid Systems.

[42]  Michael Gelfond,et al.  Representing Action and Change by Logic Programs , 1993, J. Log. Program..

[43]  Russ B. Altman,et al.  Modelling biological processes using workflow and Petri Net models , 2002, Bioinform..