Evolutionary design principles of modules that control cellular differentiation: consequences for hysteresis and multistationarity

MOTIVATION Gene regulatory networks (GRNs) govern cellular differentiation processes and enable construction of multicellular organisms from single cells. Although such networks are complex, there must be evolutionary design principles that shape the network to its present form, gaining complexity from simple modules. RESULTS To isolate particular design principles, we have computationally evolved random regulatory networks with a preference to result either in hysteresis (switching threshold depending on current state), or in multistationarity (having multiple steady states), two commonly observed dynamical features of GRNs related to differentiation processes. We have analyzed the resulting evolved networks and compared their structures and characteristics with real GRNs reported from experiments. CONCLUSION We found that the artificially evolved networks have particular topologies and it was notable that these topologies share important features and similarities with the real GRNs, particularly in contrasting properties of positive and negative feedback loops. We conclude that the structures of real GRNs are consistent with selection to favor one or other of the dynamical features of multistationarity or hysteresis. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.

[1]  H. Kitano Towards a theory of biological robustness , 2007, Molecular systems biology.

[2]  Eric H Davidson,et al.  Development. Built to run, not fail. , 2007, Science.

[3]  Nicholas T Ingolia,et al.  Topology and Robustness in the Drosophila Segment Polarity Network , 2004, PLoS biology.

[4]  A. Sedra Microelectronic circuits , 1982 .

[5]  T. Kunkel,et al.  RNA-templated DNA repair , 2007, Nature.

[6]  Johannes Jaeger,et al.  On the dynamic nature of positional information. , 2006, BioEssays : news and reviews in molecular, cellular and developmental biology.

[7]  R. Thomas,et al.  Multistationarity, the basis of cell differentiation and memory. II. Logical analysis of regulatory networks in terms of feedback circuits. , 2001, Chaos.

[8]  E. Davidson,et al.  Deciphering the Underlying Mechanism of Specification and Differentiation: The Sea Urchin Gene Regulatory Network , 2006, Science's STKE.

[9]  Alexander E. Kel,et al.  TRANSFAC® and its module TRANSCompel®: transcriptional gene regulation in eukaryotes , 2005, Nucleic Acids Res..

[10]  Stefan Bornholdt,et al.  Topology of biological networks and reliability of information processing , 2004, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[11]  Mariana Benítez,et al.  Gene regulatory network models for plant development. , 2007, Current opinion in plant biology.

[12]  David Beasley,et al.  An overview of genetic algorithms: Part 1 , 1993 .

[13]  Yoshihiro Yamanishi,et al.  KEGG for linking genomes to life and the environment , 2007, Nucleic Acids Res..

[14]  R. Thomas,et al.  Multistationarity, the basis of cell differentiation and memory. I. Structural conditions of multistationarity and other nontrivial behavior. , 2001, Chaos.

[15]  Carsten Peterson,et al.  Transcriptional Dynamics of the Embryonic Stem Cell Switch , 2006, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[16]  J. Sheen,et al.  Feedback control of gene expression , 1994, Photosynthesis Research.

[17]  A. Wagner Circuit topology and the evolution of robustness in two-gene circadian oscillators. , 2005, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[18]  E. Davidson,et al.  Gene regulatory networks for development. , 2005, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[19]  P. Lásló,et al.  Multilineage Transcriptional Priming and Determination of Alternate Hematopoietic Cell Fates , 2006, Cell.

[20]  Eric H. Davidson,et al.  Built to Run, Not Fail , 2007, Science.

[21]  James E. Ferrell,et al.  A positive-feedback-based bistable ‘memory module’ that governs a cell fate decision , 2007, Nature.

[22]  Torsten Reil,et al.  Dynamics of Gene Expression in an Artificial Genome - Implications for Biological and Artificial Ontogeny , 1999, ECAL.

[23]  U. Alon,et al.  Spontaneous evolution of modularity and network motifs. , 2005, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[24]  Luhua Lai,et al.  Robustness and modular design of the Drosophila segment polarity network , 2006, Molecular systems biology.

[25]  Marcel Salathé,et al.  Signal transduction networks: topology, response and biochemical processes. , 2006, Journal of theoretical biology.

[26]  David H. Sharp,et al.  Dynamic control of positional information in the early Drosophila embryo , 2004, Nature.

[27]  Eric H Davidson,et al.  Gene regulation: gene control network in development. , 2007, Annual review of biophysics and biomolecular structure.

[28]  J. Ferrell,et al.  A positive-feedback-based bistable ‘memory module’ that governs a cell fate decision , 2003, Nature.

[29]  Peng-Wen Chen,et al.  Interaction between Rice MYBGA and the Gibberellin Response Element Controls Tissue-Specific Sugar Sensitivity of α-Amylase Genes[W] , 2006, The Plant Cell Online.

[30]  Zhilin Qu,et al.  Hysteresis and cell cycle transitions: how crucial is it? , 2005, Biophysical journal.

[31]  Jongrae Kim,et al.  Stochastic Noise and Synchronisation during Dictyostelium Aggregation Make cAMP Oscillations Robust , 2007, PLoS Comput. Biol..