| Literature DB >> 26846964 |
Andrea Paroni1, Alex Graudenzi2,3, Giulio Caravagna4,5, Chiara Damiani6,7, Giancarlo Mauri8,9,10, Marco Antoniotti11,12.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Dynamical models of gene regulatory networks (GRNs) are highly effective in describing complex biological phenomena and processes, such as cell differentiation and cancer development. Yet, the topological and functional characterization of real GRNs is often still partial and an exhaustive picture of their functioning is missing.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 26846964 PMCID: PMC4743236 DOI: 10.1186/s12859-016-0914-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Bioinformatics ISSN: 1471-2105 Impact factor: 3.169
Fig. 1Simplified representation of the GRN model in CABERNET. a Example RBN with 3 genes (nodes) and edges representing regulatory interactions (via node-specific Boolean functions, not shown). b Example dynamics to highlight network’s attractors, modeling gene activation patterns A 1, …, A 4, and possible transitions among them induced by noise (i.e., single flips). c The transitions yield an Attractor Transition Network that generates 5 cellular types when 3 thresholds, δ , i=1,2,3 are evaluated to asses the corresponding Threshold Ergodic Sets. In this approach, where the efficiency of noise-control mechanisms is related to differentiation types, stem cells (pink), intermediate stages (light blue) and fully differentiated cells (yellow, purple and grey) emerge. The corresponding differentiation tree, is shown (Fig. modified from [35])
Main functionalities and parameters of CABERNET. A schematic representation of the various functions and parameters of CABERNET is provided, as explicitly described in the Implementation Section in the main text. For a thorough explanation please refer to the user manual (see Availability)
|
|
Software comparison. Comparison of the main features implemented in the principal tools for the qualitative simulation of the dynamics of GNRs [34, 55–58, 61–65]. Green cells and the symbol ‘V’ indicate feature that are implemented, as opposed to red cells and the symbol ‘X’. When the assignation is not neat a footnote provides further remarks
|
|
Performance evaluation
| Ordered networks ( | Critical networks ( | Chaotic networks ( | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nodes | 100 | 500 | 1000 | 5000 | 100 | 500 | 1000 | 5000 | 100 | 500 | 1000 | 5000 |
| Avg. (sec) | 10.20 | 53.66 | 101.82 | 603.56 | 9.61 | 52.53 | 109.65 | 746.80 | 13.62 | 73.22 | 150 | 1341.94 |
| St. Dev. (sec) | 1.07 | 1.76 | 2.45 | 29.40 | 0.40 | 1.74 | 3.82 | 203.43 | 0.48 | 2.18 | 6.91 | 39.58 |
The average computation time and standard deviation of 1000 steps of the dynamics is reported for different classes and sizes of NRBNs with random topology. Three classes are considered: i) ordered (i.e., average connectivity K=2, Boolean function bias b=0.3), i i) critical (i.e., K=2, b=0.5) and chaotic (i.e., K=3, b=0.5). Four different sizes are simulated: N=100,500,1000,5000. For each class and size, 10 different randomly generated networks are simulated starting form 1000 different initial conditions. The average computation time of the 10 (nets) X 1000 (initial conditions) is considered. Simulations were performed on a MacBook Pro with a 2.7 GHz dual-core Intel Core i7 processor with 4 MB shared L3 cache and 8 GB of RAM
Fig. 2Dynamical simulation and robustness analysis of an augmented T-helper GRN with CABERNET. a The T-helper signaling network, mapped in [20]. Edges stand for regulatory interactions, either activating (black) or inhibiting (red). The network is composed by 40 genes and 51 interactions. b The augmented NRNB that displayed a differentiation tree matching the hematopoietic one. To find it, 600 NRBNs were randomly generated by augmenting the T-helper GRN in CABERNET; the augmented networks include 200 nodes (160 nodes added to the original core) and 400 edges (349 new ones, average connectivity = 2). The nodes are wired according to a random Erdos-Renyi topology, and random Boolean functions with bias = 0.5 are associated to the nodes. Only matching NRBN is shown, the original core and the augmented portion of which are highlighted. In CABERNET’s visualization the size of each node is proportional to its connectivity degree and the color-scale to the function bias. c The Attractor Transition Matrix of the matching NRBN is plot by CABERNET, highlighting the noise-induced transitions among attractors and the Threshold Ergodic Sets representing cell types. The progressive splitting of the TESs due to increasingly larger noise resistance-related thresholds (i.e., δ=0,0.023,0.056,1) is shown, stressing the perfect matching between the emergent differentiation tree and that of hematopoietic cells, from multi-potent cells to fully differentiated cell types. d The differentiation tree of hematopoietic cells from [60] is depicted. Notice that T-helper cell type represents one of the leaves of the tree. For the description of the acronyms please refer to the main text. e Configuration of the 8 attractors of the augmented network (determining the gene activation patterns). In this specific case, the length of each attractor is equal to 8. f Robustness analysis performed via CABERNET. Single node knockout experiments (i.e., silencing the node’s Boolean function) are performed on each node of the original core of the augmented network and the dynamics is simulated again via CABERNET. The emergent tree is then compared with that of hematopoietic cells and the distribution of the similarity measure (Eq. 1) is displayed, highlighting 5 genes that, when silenced, still lead to a matching emergent tree (i.e., )