4.4 Article

Inference of signaling and gene regulatory networks by steady-state perturbation experiments: structure and accuracy

期刊

JOURNAL OF THEORETICAL BIOLOGY
卷 232, 期 3, 页码 427-441

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jtbi.2004.08.022

关键词

reverse engineering; unravelling; systems biology; black box; module

向作者/读者索取更多资源

One of the fundamental problems of cell biology is the understanding of complex regulatory networks. Such networks are ubiquitous in cells and knowledge of their properties is essential for the understanding of cellular behavior. In earlier work (Kholodenko et al. (PNAS 99: 12841), it was shown how the structure of biological networks can be quantified from experimental measurements of steady-state concentrations of key intermediates as a result of perturbations using a simple algorithm called unravelling. Here, we study the effect of experimental uncertainty on the accuracy of the inferred structure (i.e. whether interactions are excitatory or inhibitory) of the networks determined using the unravelling algorithm. We show that the accuracy of the network structure depends not only on the noise level but on the strength of the interactions within the network. In particular, both very small and very large values of the connection strengths lead to large uncertainty in the inferred network. We describe a powerful geometric tool for the intuitive understanding of the effect of experimental error on the qualitative accuracy of the inferred network. In addition, we show that the use of additional data beyond that needed to minimally constrain the network not only improves the accuracy of the inferred network, but also may allow the detection of situations in which the initial assumptions of unravelling with respect to the network and the perturbations have been violated. Our ideas are illustrated using the mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) signaling network as an example. (C) 2004 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