Quantifying evolvability in small biological networks

Dept. of Phys., Columbia Univ., New York, NY, USA
IET Systems Biology (Impact Factor: 1.06). 10/2009; 3(5):379 - 387. DOI: 10.1049/iet-syb.2008.0165
Source: IEEE Xplore


The authors introduce a quantitative measure of the capacity of a small biological network to evolve. The measure is applied to a stochastic description of the experimental setup of Guet et al. ( Science 2002, 296, pp. 1466), treating chemical inducers as functional inputs to biochemical networks and the expression of a reporter gene as the functional output. The authors take an information-theoretic approach, allowing the system to set parameters that optimise signal processing ability, thus enumerating each network's highest-fidelity functions. All networks studied are highly evolvable by the measure, meaning that change in function has little dependence on change in parameters. Moreover, each network's functions are connected by paths in the parameter space along which information is not significantly lowered, meaning a network may continuously change its functionality without completely losing it along the way. This property further underscores the evolvability of the networks.

Download full-text


Available from: Ilya Nemenman,
  • Source
    • "Within a mathematical model, such behavior follows straightforwardly from considering the behavior of a given dynamical system at different points in the space of quantitative parameters [12]. Revealing such degeneracy of functions by exploring the parameter space given a topology (and given an algebraic expression modeling the regulatory interactions among the genes) may be recast as one of optimizing — locally in parameter space — the mutual information between input and output over this space [13] [14] [15]. Mutual information (MI) as a cost function is advantageous both biologically (in that many natural systems including transcriptional regulatory networks are known to operate near their information-optimal constraints [16] [17] [18]) and mathematically (in that by optimizing MI we can identify parameter settings which are functional without demanding in advance the particular input-output functions we seek). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Over the past decade, a number of researchers in systems biology have sought to relate the function of biological systems to their network-level descriptions--lists of the most important players and the pairwise interactions between them. Both for large networks (in which statistical analysis is often framed in terms of the abundance of repeated small subgraphs) and for small networks which can be analyzed in greater detail (or even synthesized in vivo and subjected to experiment), revealing the relationship between the topology of small subgraphs and their biological function has been a central goal. We here seek to pose this revelation as a statistical task, illustrated using a particular setup which has been constructed experimentally and for which parameterized models of transcriptional regulation have been studied extensively. The question "how does function follow form" is here mathematized by identifying which topological attributes correlate with the diverse possible information-processing tasks which a transcriptional regulatory network can realize. The resulting method reveals one form-function relationship which had earlier been predicted based on analytic results, and reveals a second for which we can provide an analytic interpretation. Resulting source code is distributed via http://formfunction.sourceforge.net.
    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 01/2011; 108(2):446-51. DOI:10.1073/pnas.1008898108 · 9.67 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Signal-processing molecules inside cells are often present at low copy number, which necessitates probabilistic models to account for intrinsic noise. Probability distributions have traditionally been found using simulation-based approaches which then require estimating the distributions from many samples. Here we present in detail an alternative method for directly calculating a probability distribution by expanding in the natural eigenfunctions of the governing equation, which is linear. We apply the resulting spectral method to three general models of stochastic gene expression: a single gene with multiple expression states (often used as a model of bursting in the limit of two states), a gene regulatory cascade, and a combined model of bursting and regulation. In all cases we find either analytic results or numerical prescriptions that greatly outperform simulations in efficiency and accuracy. In the last case, we show that bimodal response in the limit of slow switching is not only possible but optimal in terms of information transmission.
    Physical Review E 10/2009; 80(4 Pt 1):041921. DOI:10.1103/PhysRevE.80.041921 · 2.29 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Central to the functioning of a living cell is its ability to control the readout or expression of information encoded in the genome. In many cases, a single transcription factor protein activates or represses the expression of many genes. As the concentration of the transcription factor varies, the target genes thus undergo correlated changes, and this redundancy limits the ability of the cell to transmit information about input signals. We explore how interactions among the target genes can reduce this redundancy and optimize information transmission. Our discussion builds on recent work [Tkacik, Phys. Rev. E 80, 031920 (2009)], and there are connections to much earlier work on the role of lateral inhibition in enhancing the efficiency of information transmission in neural circuits; for simplicity we consider here the case where the interactions have a feed forward structure, with no loops. Even with this limitation, the networks that optimize information transmission have a structure reminiscent of the networks found in real biological systems.
    Physical Review E 04/2010; 81(4 Pt 1):041905. DOI:10.1103/PhysRevE.81.041905 · 2.29 Impact Factor
Show more