Modelling and Identification of dynamical gene interactions Ronald Westra, Ralf Peeters Systems Theory Group Department of Mathematics Maastricht University.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Metabolic Modeling - Why? Models - why? Building models of a system helps us improve our understanding. It is also a way of checking our understanding,
Advertisements

Robustness Analysis and Tuning of Synthetic Gene Networks Grégory Batt 1 Boyan Yordanov 1 Calin Belta 1 Ron Weiss 2 1 Centers for Information and Systems.
Evidence for Complex Causes
1 Modelling Biochemical Pathways in PEPA Muffy Calder Department of Computing Science University of Glasgow Joint work with Jane Hillston and Stephen.
Modelling Cell Signalling Pathways in PEPA
Inferring Quantitative Models of Regulatory Networks From Expression Data Iftach Nachman Hebrew University Aviv Regev Harvard Nir Friedman Hebrew University.
Systems Theoretical Modelling of Genetic Pathways Ronald L. Westra Systems Theory Group Department Mathematics Maastricht University.
Simulation of Prokaryotic Genetic Circuits Jonny Wells and Jimmy Bai.
NCF LOGO Casey Henderson and Necmettin Yildirim Sensitivity Analysis Computer Algebra Operon Application to TRP Math Modeling Introduction Conclusion Modeling.
Stochastic Analysis of Bi-stability in Mixed Feedback Loops Yishai Shimoni, Hebrew University CCS Open Day Sep 18 th 2008.
Signal Processing in Single Cells Tony 03/30/2005.
Separation of Scales. Interpretation of Networks Most publications do not consider this.
Regulated Flux-Balance Analysis (rFBA) Speack: Zhu YANG
Application of Statistical Techniques to Neural Data Analysis Aniket Kaloti 03/07/2006.
Noise and Bistability 12/10/07. Noisy gene expression at single cell level Elowitz 2002.
Exploring Protein Motors -- from what we can measure to what we like to know Hongyun Wang Department of Applied Mathematics and Statistics University of.
Fuzzy K means.
6. Gene Regulatory Networks
Assigning Numbers to the Arrows Parameterizing a Gene Regulation Network by using Accurate Expression Kinetics.
Structure Learning for Inferring a Biological Pathway Charles Vaske Stuart Lab.
Feedback Control Systems (FCS)
Systematic Analysis of Interactome: A New Trend in Bioinformatics KOCSEA Technical Symposium 2010 Young-Rae Cho, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Department of.
Diffusion Maps and Spectral Clustering
Gaussian Processes for Transcription Factor Protein Inference Neil D. Lawrence, Guido Sanguinetti and Magnus Rattray.
Analyzing the systemic function of genes and proteins Rui Alves.
Nature-inspired Smart Info Systems Westra: Piecewise Linear Dynamic Modeling and Identification of Gene-Protein Interaction Networks1 Ronald L. Westra,
Nature-inspired Smart Info Systems Westra: Robust Identification of Piecewise Linear Gene-Protein Interaction Networks1 Ronald L. Westra, Ralf L. M. Peeters,
Genetic network inference: from co-expression clustering to reverse engineering Patrik D’haeseleer,Shoudan Liang and Roland Somogyi.
What Is a Gene Network?. Gene Regulatory Systems “Programs built into the DNA of every animal.” Eric H. Davidson.
Modeling and identification of biological networks Esa Pitkänen Seminar on Computational Systems Biology Department of Computer Science University.
1 Pattern storage in gene-protein networks Ronald Westra Department of Mathematics Maastricht University.
Lecture 4: Metabolism Reaction system as ordinary differential equations Reaction system as stochastic process.
How and why things crackle We expect that there ought to be a simple, underlying reason that earthquakes occur on all different sizes. The very small earthquake.
Solution Space? In most cases lack of constraints provide a space of solutions What can we do with this space? 1.Optimization methods (previous lesson)
Reconstruction of Transcriptional Regulatory Networks
GTL User Facilities Facility IV: Analysis and Modeling of Cellular Systems Jim K. Fredrickson.
BIOINFORMATICS ON NETWORKS Nick Sahinidis University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering.
Nature-inspired Smart Info Systems Westra: Piecewise Linear Dynamic Modeling and Identification of Gene-Protein Interaction Networks1 Ronald L. Westra.
Conceptual Modelling and Hypothesis Formation Research Methods CPE 401 / 6002 / 6003 Professor Will Zimmerman.
Analysis of the yeast transcriptional regulatory network.
1 Departament of Bioengineering, University of California 2 Harvard Medical School Department of Genetics Metabolic Flux Balance Analysis and the in Silico.
Problem Limited number of experimental replications. Postgenomic data intrinsically noisy. Poor network reconstruction.
Understanding Network Concepts in Modules Dong J, Horvath S (2007) BMC Systems Biology 2007, 1:24.
Steady-state Analysis of Gene Regulatory Networks via G-networks Intelligent Systems & Networks Group Dept. Electrical and Electronic Engineering Haseong.
KPS 2007 (April 19, 2007) On spectral density of scale-free networks Doochul Kim (Department of Physics and Astronomy, Seoul National University) Collaborators:
Introduction to biological molecular networks
8.4.2 Quantum process tomography 8.5 Limitations of the quantum operations formalism 量子輪講 2003 年 10 月 16 日 担当:徳本 晋
1 Identifying Differentially Regulated Genes Nirmalya Bandyopadhyay, Manas Somaiya, Sanjay Ranka, and Tamer Kahveci Bioinformatics Lab., CISE Department,
Learning Chaotic Dynamics from Time Series Data A Recurrent Support Vector Machine Approach Vinay Varadan.
Nonlinear differential equation model for quantification of transcriptional regulation applied to microarray data of Saccharomyces cerevisiae Vu, T. T.,
A Kernel Approach for Learning From Almost Orthogonal Pattern * CIS 525 Class Presentation Professor: Slobodan Vucetic Presenter: Yilian Qin * B. Scholkopf.
Fan-out in Gene Regulatory Networks Kyung Hyuk Kim Senior Fellow Department of Bioengineering University of Washington, Seattle 2 nd International Workshop.
Modeling & Simulation of Dynamic Systems (MSDS)
Dynamical Modeling in Biology: a semiotic perspective Junior Barrera BIOINFO-USP.
ECE-7000: Nonlinear Dynamical Systems 3. Phase Space Methods 3.1 Determinism: Uniqueness in phase space We Assume that the system is linear stochastic.
Geology 5670/6670 Inverse Theory 12 Jan 2015 © A.R. Lowry 2015 Read for Wed 14 Jan: Menke Ch 2 (15-37) Last time: Course Introduction (Cont’d) Goal is.
Identifying submodules of cellular regulatory networks Guido Sanguinetti Joint work with N.D. Lawrence and M. Rattray.
Think like an experimentalist 10/11/10. Melissa, you’re a modeler! And I do “systems biology”. So model this data for me!!
Inferring Regulatory Networks from Gene Expression Data BMI/CS 776 Mark Craven April 2002.
Journal club Jun , Zhen.
Effective Connectivity: Basics
Bud Mishra Professor of Computer Science and Mathematics 12 ¦ 3 ¦ 2001
1 Department of Engineering, 2 Department of Mathematics,
1 Department of Engineering, 2 Department of Mathematics,
Noise in cellular circuitry
CISC 841 Bioinformatics (Spring 2006) Inference of Biological Networks
1 Department of Engineering, 2 Department of Mathematics,
Corentin Briat, Ankit Gupta, Mustafa Khammash  Cell Systems 
Multivariate Methods Berlin Chen
Multivariate Methods Berlin Chen, 2005 References:
Presentation transcript:

Modelling and Identification of dynamical gene interactions Ronald Westra, Ralf Peeters Systems Theory Group Department of Mathematics Maastricht University The Netherlands

Themes in this Presentation How deterministic is gene regulation? How can we model gene regulation? How can we reconstruct a gene regulatory network from empirical data ?

1. How deterministic is gene regulation? Main concepts: Genetic Pathway and Gene Regulatory Network

What defines the concepts of a genetic pathway and a gene regulatory network and how is it reconstructed from empirical data ?

Genetic pathway as a static and fixed model G2 G1 G4 G5 G6 G3

Experimental method: gene knock-out G2 G1 G4 G5 G6 G3

Stochastic Gene Expression in a Single Cell M. B. Elowitz, A. J. Levine, E. D. Siggia, P. S. Swain Science Vol August 2002 How deterministic is gene regulation?

AB

Elowitz et al. conclude that gene regulation is remarkably deterministic under varying empirical conditions, and does not depend on particular microscopic details of the genes or agents involved. This effect is particularly strong for high transcription rates. These insights reveal the deterministic nature of the microscopic behavior, and justify to model the macroscopic system as the average over the entire ensemble of stochastic fluctuations of the gene expressions and agent densities. Conclusions from this experiment

2. Modelling dynamical gene regulation

Implicit modeling: Model only the relations between the genes G2 G1 G4 G5 G6 G3

Implicit linear model Linear relation between gene expressions N gene expression profiles : m-dimensional input vector u(t) : m external stimuli p-dimensional output vector y(t) Matrices C and D define the selections of expressions and inputs that are experimentally observed

Implicit linear model The matrix A = (a ij ) - a ij denotes the coupling between gene i and gene j: a ij > 0 stimulating, a ij < 0 inhibiting, a ij = 0 : no coupling Diagonal terms a ii denote the auto-relaxation of isolated and expressed gene i

Relation between connectivity matrix A and the genetic pathway of the system G2 G1 G4 G5 G6 G3 coupling from gene 5 to gene 6 is a(5,6)

Explicit modeling of gene-gene Interactions In reality genes interact only with agents (RNA, proteins, abiotic molecules) and not directly with other genes Agents engage in complex interactions causing secondary processes and possibly new agents This gives rise to complex, non-linear dynamics

An example of a mathematical model based on some stoichiometric equations using the law of mass actions Here we propose a deterministic approach based on averaging over the ensemble of possible configurations of genes and agents, partly based on the observed reproducibillity by Elowitz et al.

In this model we distinguish between three primary processes for gene-agent interactions: 1.stimulation 2.inhibition 3. transcription and further allow for secondary processes between agents.

the n-vector x denotes the n gene expressions, the m-vector a denotes the densities of the agents involved.

x : n gene expressions a : m agents

 (a) denotes the effect of secondary interactions between agents

Agent A i catalyzes its own synthesis: EXAMPLE Autocatalytic synthesis

Complex nonlinear dynamics observed in all dimensions x and a – including multiple stable equilibria.

Conclusions on modelling More realistic modelling involving nonlinearity and explicit interactions between genes and operons (RNA, proteins, abiotic) exhibits multiple stable equilibria in terms of gene expressions x and agent denisties a

3. Identification of gene regulatory networks

the matrices A and B are unknown u(t) is known and y(t) is observed x(t) is unknown and acts as state space variable Linear Implicit Model

the matrices A and B are highly sparse : Most genes interact only with a few other genes or external agents i.e. most a ij and b ij are zero. Identification of the linear implicit model

Estimate the unknown matrices A and B from a finite number – M – of samples on times {t 1, t 2,.., t M } of observations of inputs u and observations y: {(u(t 1 ), y(t 1 )), (u(t 2 ), y(t 2 )),.., (u(t M ), y(t M ))} Challenge for identifying the linear implicit model

Notice: 1.the problem is linear in the unknown parameters A and B 2.the problem is under-determined as normally M << N 3.the matrices A and B are highly sparse

L 2 -regression? This approach minimizes the integral squared error between observed and model values. This approach would distribute the small scale of the interaction (the sparsity) over all coefficients of the matrices A and B Hence: this approach would reconstruct small coupling coefficients between all genes – total connectivity with small values and no zeros

L 1 - or robust regression This approach minimizes the integral absolute error between observed and model values. This approach results in generating the maximum amount of exact zeros in the matrices A and B Hence: this approach reconstructs sparse coupling matrices, in which genes interact with only a few other genes It is most efficiently implemented with dual linear programming method (dual simplex).

L 1 -regression Example: Partial dual L1-minimization (Peeters,Westra, MTNS 2004) Involves a number of unobserved genes x in the state space Efficient in terms of CPU-time and number of errors : M required  log N

The L 1 -reconstruction ultimately yields the connectivity matrix A of the linear implicit model hence the genetic pathway of the gene regulatory system.

Reconstruction of the genetic pathway with partial L 1 -minimization for the nonlinear explicit model What would the application of this approach yield for direct application for the explicit nonlinear model discussed before?

Reconstruction with L 1 -minimization From the explicit nonlinear model one obtains series: {(x(t 1 ), a(t 1 )), (x(t 2 ), a(t 2 )),.., (x(t M ), a(t M ))} For the L 1 -approach only the terms: {x(t 1 ), x(t 2 ),.., x(t M )} are required.

Sampling

Reconstruction of coupling matrix A

Conclusions from applying the L1-approach to the nonlinear explicit model 1. The reconstructed connectivity matrix - hence the genetic pathway - differs among different stable equilibria 2. In practical situations to each stable equilibrium there belongs one unique connectivity matrix - hence one unique genetic pathway

Discussion And Conclusions

Discussion * In practice, one unique genetic pathway will be found in one stable state, caused by the dominant eigenvalue of convergence * knock-out experiments can cause the system to converge to another stable state, hence what is reconstructed? * How realistic is the assumption of equilibrium for a gene regulatory network? Mostly the system swirls around in non-equilibrium state

Conclusions * The concept of a genetic pathway is useful (and quasi unique) in one equilibrium state but is not applicable for multiple stable states * A genetic regulatory network is a dynamic, nonlinear system and depends on the microscopic dynamics between the genes and operons involved

Ronald Westra Ralf Peeters Systems Theory Group Department of Mathematics Maastricht University PO box 616 NL6200MD Maastricht The Netherlands