Boolean Models of Biological Processes Explain Cascade-Like Behavior

Biological networks play a key role in determining biological function and therefore, an understanding of their structure and dynamics is of central interest in systems biology. In Boolean models of such networks, the status of each molecule is either "on" or "off" and along with the molecules interact with each other, their individual status changes from "on" to "off" or vice-versa and the system of molecules in the network collectively go through a sequence of changes in state. This sequence of changes is termed a biological process. In this paper, we examine the common perception that events in biomolecular networks occur sequentially, in a cascade-like manner, and ask whether this is likely to be an inherent property. In further investigations of the budding and fission yeast cell-cycle, we identify two generic dynamical rules. A Boolean system that complies with these rules will automatically have a certain robustness. By considering the biological requirements in robustness and designability, we show that those Boolean dynamical systems, compared to an arbitrary dynamical system, statistically present the characteristics of cascadeness and sequentiality, as observed in the budding and fission yeast cell- cycle. These results suggest that cascade-like behavior might be an intrinsic property of biological processes.

[1]  S. Kauffman,et al.  Activities and sensitivities in boolean network models. , 2004, Physical review letters.

[2]  D. Lauffenburger,et al.  Discrete logic modelling as a means to link protein signalling networks with functional analysis of mammalian signal transduction , 2009, Molecular systems biology.

[3]  Joshua L. Payne,et al.  Constraint and Contingency in Multifunctional Gene Regulatory Circuits , 2013, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[4]  A. Wagner,et al.  Innovation and robustness in complex regulatory gene networks , 2007, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[5]  M. Aldana,et al.  Floral Morphogenesis: Stochastic Explorations of a Gene Network Epigenetic Landscape , 2008, PloS one.

[6]  Rémi Monasson,et al.  Determining computational complexity from characteristic ‘phase transitions’ , 1999, Nature.

[7]  R. Simha,et al.  Process-based network decomposition reveals backbone motif structure , 2010, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[8]  Peter Philippsen,et al.  Regulation of exit from mitosis in multinucleate Ashbya gossypii cells relies on a minimal network of genes , 2011, Molecular biology of the cell.

[9]  Yigal D. Nochomovitz,et al.  Highly designable phenotypes and mutational buffers emerge from a systematic mapping between network topology and dynamic output. , 2006, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[10]  S. Kauffman,et al.  Genetic networks with canalyzing Boolean rules are always stable. , 2004, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[11]  S. Bornholdt,et al.  Criticality in random threshold networks: annealed approximation and beyond , 2002, cond-mat/0201079.

[12]  Barbara Drossel,et al.  The phase diagram of random threshold networks , 2008, 0807.0429.

[13]  Rui-Sheng Wang,et al.  Boolean modeling in systems biology: an overview of methodology and applications , 2012, Physical biology.

[14]  Stefan Bornholdt,et al.  Binary threshold networks as a natural null model for biological networks. , 2012, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[15]  S. Bornholdt,et al.  Boolean Network Model Predicts Cell Cycle Sequence of Fission Yeast , 2007, PloS one.

[16]  Barbara Drossel.  Number of attractors in random Boolean networks. , 2005, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[17]  Peter K. Sorger,et al.  Logic-Based Models for the Analysis of Cell Signaling Networks† , 2010, Biochemistry.

[18]  Marija Cvijovic,et al.  Boolean Model of Yeast Apoptosis as a Tool to Study Yeast and Human Apoptotic Regulations , 2012, Front. Physio..

[19]  Stefan Bornholdt,et al.  Boolean Network Model Predicts Knockout Mutant Phenotypes of Fission Yeast , 2013, PloS one.

[20]  Kwang-Hyun Cho,et al.  Attractor Landscape Analysis Reveals Feedback Loops in the p53 Network That Control the Cellular Response to DNA Damage , 2012, Science Signaling.

[21]  N. Wingreen,et al.  Emergence of Preferred Structures in a Simple Model of Protein Folding , 1996, Science.

[22]  David L. Dill,et al.  Timing Robustness in the Budding and Fission Yeast Cell Cycles , 2010, PloS one.

[23]  Theodore J. Perkins,et al.  Robust dynamics in minimal hybrid models of genetic networks , 2010, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences.

[24]  Jorge G. T. Zañudo,et al.  Boolean Threshold Networks: Virtues and Limitations for Biological Modeling , 2010, 1011.3848.

[25]  Barbara Drossel,et al.  Boolean networks with reliable dynamics. , 2009, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[26]  Fabian J Theis,et al.  Hierarchical Differentiation of Myeloid Progenitors Is Encoded in the Transcription Factor Network , 2011, PloS one.

[27]  Steffen Klamt,et al.  A Logical Model Provides Insights into T Cell Receptor Signaling , 2007, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[28]  Chen Zeng,et al.  Process-Driven Inference of Biological Network Structure: Feasibility, Minimality, and Multiplicity , 2012, PloS one.

[29]  Q. Ouyang,et al.  The yeast cell-cycle network is robustly designed. , 2003, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[30]  Hiroshi Chuman,et al.  Simple computational models of type I/type II cells in Fas signaling-induced apoptosis. , 2008, Journal of theoretical biology.

[31]  Subhadip Raychaudhuri,et al.  A Minimal Model of Signaling Network Elucidates Cell-to-Cell Stochastic Variability in Apoptosis , 2010, PloS one.

[32]  S. Kauffman.  Metabolic stability and epigenesis in randomly constructed genetic nets. , 1969, Journal of theoretical biology.