Evolving plastic responses in artificial cell models

Two variants of biologically inspired cell model, namely eukaryotic (containing a nucleus) and prokaryotic (without a nucleus) are compared in this research. The comparison investigates their relative evolvability and ability to integrate external environmental stimulus to direct protein pattern formation within a single cell. To the authors' knowledge there has been no reported work comparing the relative performance of eukaryotic and prokaryotic artificial cells models. We propose a novel system of protein translocation for eukaryotic cells based on the process of nucleocytoplasmic transport observed in biological cells. Results demonstrate that eukaryotic cell models exhibit a higher degree of sensitivity to environmental variations compared with prokaryotes. Based on these results we conclude that the process of transporting proteins to and from the nucleus plays a key role in shaping eukaryotic cell plasticity.

[1]  D. Parisi,et al.  Phenotypic plasticity in evolving neural networks , 1994, Proceedings of PerAc '94. From Perception to Action.

[2]  E. Borenstein,et al.  The effect of phenotypic plasticity on evolution in multipeaked fitness landscapes , 2006, Journal of evolutionary biology.

[3]  Chrystopher L. Nehaniv,et al.  Evolving Biological Clocks using Genetic Regulatory Networks , 2005 .

[4]  M. Arnone.  Bringing order to organogenesis , 2002, Nature Genetics.

[5]  Peter J. Bentley,et al.  Biologically Inspired Evolutionary Development , 2003, ICES.

[6]  Peter Eggenberger-Hotz.  Evolving Morphologies of Simulated 3d Organisms Based on Differential Gene Expression , 2007 .

[7]  Erich A. Nigg,et al.  Nucleocytoplasmic transport: signals, mechanisms and regulation , 1997, Nature.

[8]  M. West-Eberhard.  Developmental plasticity and evolution , 2003 .

[9]  L. Darrell Whitley,et al.  Adding Learning to the Cellular Development of Neural Networks: Evolution and the Baldwin Effect , 1993, Evolutionary Computation.

[10]  Julian Francis Miller,et al.  Evolving a Self-Repairing, Self-Regulating, French Flag Organism , 2004, GECCO.

[11]  Pauline C. Haddow,et al.  Achieving a simple development model for 3D shapes: are chemicals necessary? , 2007, GECCO '07.

[12]  Julian F. Miller,et al.  The Challenge of Complexity , 2004 .

[13]  Peter J. Bentley,et al.  Three Ways to Grow Designs: A Comparison of Embryogenies for an Evolutionary Design Problem , 1999, GECCO.

[14]  Gunnar Tufte,et al.  Extending Artificial Development: Exploiting Environmental Information for the Achievement of Phenotypic Plasticity , 2007, ICES.

[15]  Chris P. Bowers.  Simulating Evolution with a Computational Model of Embryogeny: Obtaining Robustness from Evolved Individuals , 2005, ECAL.

[16]  W. Arthur,et al.  The emerging conceptual framework of evolutionary developmental biology , 2002, Nature.

[17]  E. D. Di Paolo.  Evolving spike-timing-dependent plasticity for single-trial learning in robots. , 2003, Philosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences.

[18]  Tom Lenaerts,et al.  Developmental Effects on Tuneable Fitness Landscapes , 2003, ICES.

[19]  Peter J. Bentley,et al.  Computational Embryology: Past, Present and Future , 2000 .

[20]  Peter J. Bentley,et al.  On growth, form and computers , 2003 .

[21]  Daniel Roggen,et al.  Multi-cellular Development: Is There Scalability and Robustness to Gain? , 2004, PPSN.