Leveraging developmental landscapes for model selection in Boolean gene regulatory networks

Boolean models are a well-established framework to model developmental gene regulatory networks (DGRNs) for acquisition of cellular identities. During the reconstruction of Boolean DGRNs, even if the network structure is given, there is generally a large number of combinations of Boolean functions that will reproduce the different cell fates (biological attractors). Here we leverage the developmental landscape to enable model selection on such ensembles using the relative stability of the attractors. First we show that previously proposed measures of relative stability are strongly correlated and we stress the usefulness of the one that captures best the cell state transitions via the mean first passage time (MFPT) as it also allows the construction of a cellular lineage tree. A property of great computational importance is the insensitivity of the different stability measures to changes in noise intensities. That allows us to use stochastic approaches to estimate the MFPT and thereby scale up the computations to large networks. Given this methodology, we revisit different Boolean models of Arabidopsis thaliana root development, showing that a most recent one does not respect the biologically expected hierarchy of cell states based on relative stabilities. We therefore developed an iterative greedy algorithm that searches for models which satisfy the expected hierarchy of cell states and found that its application to the root development model yields many models that meet this expectation. Our methodology thus provides new tools that can enable reconstruction of more realistic and accurate Boolean models of DGRNs.

Automated summary

Boolean models are a well-established framework for modeling developmental gene regulatory networks (DGRNs) in cell identity acquisition. This study proposes a method for model selection of Boolean DGRNs by leveraging the developmental landscape and using the relative stability of attractors. The novelty of the methodology is rated at 8 out of 10.