A more robust Boolean model describing inhibitor binding

Abstract

From the first application of the Boolean model to the cell cycle regulation network of budding yeast, new regulative pathways have been discovered, particularly in the G1/S transition circuit. This discovery called for finer modeling to study the essential biology, and the resulting outcomes are first introduced in the article. A traditional Boolean network model set up for the new G1/S transition circuit shows that it cannot correctly simulate real biology unless the model parameters are fine tuned. The deficiency is caused by an overly coarse-grained description of the inhibitor binding process, which shall be overcome by a two-vector model proposed whose robustness is surveyed using random perturbations. Simulations show that the proposed two-vector model is much more robust in describing inhibitor binding processes within the Boolean framework.

References

1. Bornholdt S . Systemsbiology: Less is more in modeling large genetic networks. Science, 2005, 310(5747): 449–451. doi:10.1126/science.1119959
2. Li F T, Long T, Lu Y, et al.. The yeast cell-cycle network is robustly designed. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciencesof the United States of America, 2004, 101(14): 4781–4786. doi:10.1073/pnas.0305937101
3. Kauffman S A . The Origins of Order: Self-Organization and Selection in Evolution. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993
4. Albert R, Othmer H G . The topology of the regulatoryinteractions predicts the expression pattern of the segment polaritygenes in Drosophila melanogaster. Journalof Theoretical Biology, 2003, 223(1): 1–18. doi:10.1016/S0022-5193(03)00035-3
5. Davidich M I, Bornholdt S . Boolean network model predictscell cycle sequence of fission yeast. PLoSONE, 2008, 3(2): e1672. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0001672
6. Rubinstein A, Gurevich V, Kasulin-Boneh. , et al.. Faithful modeling of transient expression andits application to elucidating negative feedback regulation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciencesof the United States of America, 2007 104(15): 6241–6246. doi:10.1073/pnas.0611168104
7. de Bruin R A, Kalashnikova T I, Chahwan C, et al.. Constraining G1-specific transcription to lateG1 phase: the MBF-associated corepressor Nrm1 acts via negative feedback. Molecular Cell, 2006, 23(4): 483–496. doi:10.1016/j.molcel.2006.06.025
8. de Bruin R A, McDonald W H, Kalashnikova T I, et al.. Cln3 activates G1-specific transcription viaphosphorylation of the SBF bound repressor Whi5. Cell, 2004, 117(7): 887–898. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2004.05.025
9. Costanzo M, Nishikawa J L, Tang X, et al.. CDK activity antagonizes Whi5, an inhibitorof G1/S transcription in yeast. Cell, 2004, 117(7): 899–913. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2004.05.024
10. Braunewell S, Bornholdt S . Superstability of the yeastcell-cycle dynamics: ensuring causality in the presence of biochemicalstochasticity. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 2007, 245(4): 638–643. doi:10.1016/j.jtbi.2006.11.012
11. Morgan D O . The Cell Cycle: Principles of Control. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006, Chapter 3
12. Verma R, Annan R S, Huddleston M J, et al.. Phosphorylation of Sic1p by G1 Cdk requiredfor its degradation and entry into S phase. Science, 1997, 278(5337): 455–460