4.4 Article

Evolutionary design of regulatory control. I. A robust control theory analysis of tradeoffs

期刊

JOURNAL OF THEORETICAL BIOLOGY
卷 463, 期 -, 页码 121-137

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jtbi.2018.12.023

关键词

Phenotypic plasticity; Homeostasis; Systems biology; Feedback

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [DEB-1251035]
  2. Donald Bren Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The evolutionary design of regulatory control balances various tradeoffs in performance. Fast reaction to environmental change tends to favor plastic responsiveness at the expense of greater sensitivity to perturbations that degrade homeostatic control. Greater homeostatic stability against unpredictable disturbances tends to reduce performance in tracking environmental change. This article applies the classic principles of engineering control theory to the evolutionary design of regulatory systems. The engineering theory clarifies the conceptual aspects of evolutionary tradeoffs and provides analytic methods for developing specific predictions. On the conceptual side, this article clarifies the meanings of integral control, feedback, and design, concepts that have been discussed in a confusing way within the biological literature. On the analytic side, this article presents extensive methods and examples to study error-correcting feedback, which is perhaps the single greatest principle of design in both human-engineered and naturally designed systems. The broad framework and associated software code provide a comprehensive how-to guide for making models that focus on functional aspects of regulatory control and for making comparative predictions about regulatory design in response to various kinds of environmental challenge. The second article in this series analyzes how alternative regulatory designs influence the relative levels of genetic variability, stochasticity of trait expression, and heritability of disease. (C) 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据