Pareto evolution of gene networks: an algorithm to optimize multiple fitness objectives

The computational evolution of gene networks functions like a forward genetic screen to generate, without preconceptions, all networks that can be assembled from a defined list of parts to implement a given function. Frequently networks are subject to multiple design criteria that cannot all be optimized simultaneously. To explore how these tradeoffs interact with evolution, we implement Pareto optimization in the context of gene network evolution. In response to a temporal pulse of a signal, we evolve networks whose output turns on slowly after the pulse begins, and shuts down rapidly when the pulse terminates. The best performing networks under our conditions do not fall into categories such as feed forward and negative feedback that also encode the input-output relation we used for selection. Pareto evolution can more efficiently search the space of networks than optimization based on a single ad hoc combination of the design criteria.

[1]  K. Dill,et al.  The Protein Folding Problem , 1993 .

[2]  Gary B. Lamont,et al.  Multiobjective Evolutionary Algorithms: Analyzing the State-of-the-Art , 2000, Evolutionary Computation.

[3]  G. Odell,et al.  The segment polarity network is a robust developmental module , 2000, Nature.

[4]  U. Alon,et al.  Negative autoregulation speeds the response times of transcription networks. , 2002, Journal of molecular biology.

[5]  Gary B. Lamont,et al.  Evolutionary Algorithms for Solving Multi-Objective Problems , 2002, Genetic Algorithms and Evolutionary Computation.

[6]  S. Mangan,et al.  Structure and function of the feed-forward loop network motif , 2003, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[7]  S. Mangan,et al.  The coherent feedforward loop serves as a sign-sensitive delay element in transcription networks. , 2003, Journal of molecular biology.

[8]  V. Hakim,et al.  Design of genetic networks with specified functions by evolution in silico. , 2004, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[9]  Uri Alon,et al.  Environmental selection of the feed-forward loop circuit in gene-regulation networks , 2005, Physical biology.

[10]  John C. Doyle,et al.  Surviving heat shock: control strategies for robustness and performance. , 2005, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[11]  B. Kholodenko Cell-signalling dynamics in time and space , 2006, Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology.

[12]  Sebastian Bonhoeffer,et al.  Simulating the evolution of signal transduction pathways. , 2006, Journal of theoretical biology.

[13]  V. Hakim,et al.  Deriving structure from evolution: metazoan segmentation , 2007, Molecular systems biology.

[14]  M. Lynch The evolution of genetic networks by non-adaptive processes , 2007, Nature Reviews Genetics.

[15]  Nicolas E. Buchler,et al.  Molecular titration and ultrasensitivity in regulatory networks. , 2008, Journal of molecular biology.

[16]  Paul François,et al.  A case study of evolutionary computation of biochemical adaptation , 2008, Physical biology.

[17]  Richard A. Goldstein,et al.  Evolution of Taxis Responses in Virtual Bacteria: Non-Adaptive Dynamics , 2008, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[18]  W. Lim,et al.  Defining Network Topologies that Can Achieve Biochemical Adaptation , 2009, Cell.

[19]  E. Siggia,et al.  Predicting embryonic patterning using mutual entropy fitness and in silico evolution , 2010, Development.

[20]  James Sharpe,et al.  An atlas of gene regulatory networks reveals multiple three-gene mechanisms for interpreting morphogen gradients , 2010, Molecular systems biology.

[21]  A. Tarakanova,et al.  Molecular modeling of protein materials: case study of elastin , 2013 .