1 Modelling Biochemical Pathways in PEPA Muffy Calder Department of Computing Science University of Glasgow Joint work with Jane Hillston and Stephen.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Unravelling the biochemical reaction kinetics from time-series data Santiago Schnell Indiana University School of Informatics and Biocomplexity Institute.
Advertisements

Signals and Systems March 25, Summary thus far: software engineering Focused on abstraction and modularity in software engineering. Topics: procedures,
Modelling and Identification of dynamical gene interactions Ronald Westra, Ralf Peeters Systems Theory Group Department of Mathematics Maastricht University.
Modelling Cell Signalling Pathways in PEPA
Computer modeling of radiation effects Noriyuki B. Ouchi and Kimiaki Saito Radiation Effects Analysis Research Group, Nuclear Science and Engineering Directorate,
CHAPTER II UNDERSTANDING BIOCHEMICAL SYSTEM FOR PATHWAYS RECONSTRUCTION Hiren Karathia (Ph.D- System Biology and Bioinformatics) Supervisor: Dr. Rui Alves.
Distillation Modeling and Dynamics Distillation Part 2.
Biological pathway and systems analysis An introduction.
Åbo Akademi University & TUCS, Turku, Finland Ion PETRE Andrzej MIZERA COPASI Complex Pathway Simulator.
Introduction to Systems Biology Mathematical modeling of biological systems.
Models and methods in systems biology Daniel Kluesing Algorithms in Biology Spring 2009.
Petri net modeling of biological networks Claudine Chaouiya.
Mathematical Representation of Reconstructed Networks The Left Null space The Row and column spaces of S.
Modeling Signal Transduction with Process Algebra: Integrating Molecular Structure and Dynamics Aviv Regev BigRoc Seminar February 2000.
1 Synchronization strategies for global computing models Ivan Lanese Computer Science Department University of Bologna.
Dynamic Modeling Of Biological Systems. Why Model? When it’s a simple, constrained path we can easily go from experimental measurements to intuitive understanding.
Use of Ontologies in the Life Sciences: BioPax Graciela Gonzalez, PhD (some slides adapted from presentations available at
Mathematical Modelling of Phage Dynamics: Applications in STEC studies Tom Evans.
Gene Regulatory Networks - the Boolean Approach Andrey Zhdanov Based on the papers by Tatsuya Akutsu et al and others.
PML: Toward a High-Level Formal Language for Biological Systems Bor-Yuh Evan Chang and Manu Sridharan July 24, 2003.
Computational Systems Biology Prepared by: Rhia Trogo Rafael Cabredo Levi Jones Monteverde.
Photo-transduction and related mathematical problems D. Holcman, Weizmann Institute of Science.
1 Ivan Lanese Computer Science Department University of Bologna Italy Concurrent and located synchronizations in π-calculus.
Humboldt- Universität zu Berlin Edda Klipp Systembiologie 3 - Stoichiometry Sommersemester 2010 Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin Institut für Biologie Theoretische.
Communication step Before: …+ x.P | x(y).Q +… Condition: same channel x After: P | Q { z / y } Modeling Signal Transduction With Process Algebra Aviv Regev,
Systems Biology Lab, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK, Overview of current research (Declan Bates) Robustness of deterministic & stochastic.
Bayesian integration of biological prior knowledge into the reconstruction of gene regulatory networks Dirk Husmeier Adriano V. Werhli.
Signals and Systems March 25, Summary thus far: software engineering Focused on abstraction and modularity in software engineering. Topics: procedures,
Diana Hermith, BSc. Molecular Biology Graduate Student Program in Engineering Emphasis in Computer Systems (Graduate Research.
Stochastic models of chemical kinetics 5. Poisson process.
Genetic network inference: from co-expression clustering to reverse engineering Patrik D’haeseleer,Shoudan Liang and Roland Somogyi.
Presentation Schedule. Homework 8 Compare the tumor-immune model using Von Bertalanffy growth to the one presented in class using a qualitative analysis…
Metabolic pathway alteration, regulation and control (5) -- Simulation of metabolic network Xi Wang 02/07/2013 Spring 2013 BsysE 595 Biosystems Engineering.
Modeling and identification of biological networks Esa Pitkänen Seminar on Computational Systems Biology Department of Computer Science University.
Advanced Topics in SE Spring Process Algebra Hossein Hojjat Formal Methods Lab University of Tehran.
Reactive systems – general
Computational biology of cancer cell pathways Modelling of cancer cell function and response to therapy.
BIOINFORMATICS ON NETWORKS Nick Sahinidis University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering.
Modelling Biological Systems with Differential Equations Rainer Breitling Bioinformatics Research Centre February 2004.
ChE 553 Lecture 15 Catalytic Kinetics Continued 1.
Graphical Rule-Based Modeling of Signal-Transduction Systems
Mathematical Modeling of Signal Transduction Pathways Biplab Bose IIT Guwahati.
Lecture 2: Overview of Computer Simulation of Biological Pathways and Network Crosstalk Y.Z. Chen Department of Pharmacy National University of Singapore.
Problem Limited number of experimental replications. Postgenomic data intrinsically noisy. Poor network reconstruction.
MURI Annual Review, Vanderbilt, Sep 8 th, 2009 Heterogeneous Sensor Webs for Automated Target Recognition and Tracking in Urban Terrain (W911NF )
Learning Bayesian networks from postgenomic data with an improved structure MCMC sampling scheme Dirk Husmeier Marco Grzegorczyk 1) Biomathematics & Statistics.
Stochastic Differential Equation Modeling and Analysis of TCP - Windowsize Behavior Presented by Sri Hari Krishna Narayanan (Some slides taken from or.
PML: Toward a High-Level Formal Language for Biological Systems Bor-Yuh Evan Chang and Manu Sridharan Computer Science Division University of California,
May University of Glasgow Generalising Feature Interactions in Muffy Calder, Alice Miller Dept. of Computing Science University of Glasgow.
Hybrid Functional Petri Net model of the Canonical Wnt Pathway Koh Yeow Nam, Geoffrey.
Single Ion Channels.
L 7: Linear Systems and Metabolic Networks. Linear Equations Form System.
Marc Fink & Yan Liu & Shangying Wang Student Project Proposal
The British Computer Society Sidney Michaelson Memorial Lecture 2008 Systems biology: what is the software of life? Professor Muffy Calder, University.
Reverse engineering of regulatory networks Dirk Husmeier & Adriano Werhli.
Regression Analysis1. 2 INTRODUCTION TO EMPIRICAL MODELS LEAST SQUARES ESTIMATION OF THE PARAMETERS PROPERTIES OF THE LEAST SQUARES ESTIMATORS AND ESTIMATION.
Uncertain Observation Times Shaunak Chatterjee & Stuart Russell Computer Science Division University of California, Berkeley.
Why use landscape models?  Models allow us to generate and test hypotheses on systems Collect data, construct model based on assumptions, observe behavior.
Modeling and Simulation of Signal Transduction Pathways Mark Moeller & Björn Oleson Supervisors: Klaus Prank Ralf Hofestädt.
Dynamical Modeling in Biology: a semiotic perspective Junior Barrera BIOINFO-USP.
BCB 570 Spring Signal Transduction Julie Dickerson Electrical and Computer Engineering.
1 1.3 © 2016 Pearson Education, Ltd. Linear Equations in Linear Algebra VECTOR EQUATIONS.
BT8118 – Adv. Topics in Systems Biology
Over-Expression of HER2 Causes Cancer: A Mathematical Model
1 Department of Engineering, 2 Department of Mathematics,
1 Department of Engineering, 2 Department of Mathematics,
1 Department of Engineering, 2 Department of Mathematics,
alia joko 21st Nordic Process Control Workshop
Computational Biology
FRAP in NIH 3T3 β-actin-GFP cell
Presentation transcript:

1 Modelling Biochemical Pathways in PEPA Muffy Calder Department of Computing Science University of Glasgow Joint work with Jane Hillston and Stephen Gilmore October 2004

2 Are you in the right room? Yes, this is computing science! Question Can we apply computing science theory and tools to biochemical pathways? If so, What analysis do these new models offer? How do these models relate to traditional ones? What are the implications for life scientists? What are the implications for computing science?

3 Cell Signalling or Signal Transduction * fundamental cell processes (growth, division, differentiation, apoptosis) determined by signalling most signalling via membrane receptors signalling molecule receptor gene effects * movement of signal from outside cell to inside

4 A little more complex.. pathways/networks

5

6 RKIP Inhibited ERK Pathway m1 Raf-1* m2 k1 m3 Raf-1*/RKIP m12 MEK K12/k13 m7 MEK-PP k6/k7 m5 ERK m8 MEK-PP/ERK-P k8 m9 ERK-PP k3 m4 k5 m6 RKIP-P m10 RP k9/k10 m11 RKIP-P/RP k11 m2 k1 m3 k3 Raf-1*/RKIP/ERK-PP m2 RKIP k1/k2 m3 k3 k15 m13 k14 From paper by Cho, Shim, Kim, Wolkenhauer, McFerran, Kolch, 2003.

7 RKIP Inhibited ERK Pathway m1 Raf-1* m2 k1 m3 Raf-1*/RKIP m12 MEK k12/k13 m7 MEK-PP k6/k7 m5 ERK m8 MEK-PP/ERK-P k8 m9 ERK-PP k3 m4 k5 m6 RKIP-P m10 RP k9/k10 m11 RKIP-P/RP k11 m2 k1 m3 k3 Raf-1*/RKIP/ERK-PP m2 RKIP k1/k2 m3 k3 k15 m13 k14 From paper by Cho, Shim, Kim, Wolkenhauer, McFerran, Kolch, 2003.

8 RKIP protein expression is reduced in breast cancers

9 RKIP Inhibited ERK Pathway proteins/complexes forward /backward reactions (associations/disassociations) products (disassociations) m1, m2.. concentrations of proteins k1,k2..: rate (performance) coefficients m1 Raf-1* m2 k1 m3 Raf-1*/RKIP m12 MEK k12/k13 m7 MEK-PP k6/k7 m5 ERK m8 MEK-PP/ERK-P k8 m9 ERK-PP k3 m4 k5 m6 RKIP-P m10 RP k9/k10 m11 RKIP-P/RP k11 m2 k1 m3 k3 Raf-1*/RKIP/ERK-PP m2 RKIP k1/k2 m3 k3 k15 m13 k14

10 RKIP Inhibited ERK Pathway This network seems to be very similar to producer/consumer networks. Why not to try using process algebras for modelling? m1 Raf-1* m2 k1 m3 Raf-1*/RKIP m12 MEK k12/k13 m7 MEK-PP k6/k7 m5 ERK m8 MEK-PP/ERK-P k8 m9 ERK-PP k3 m4 k5 m6 RKIP-P m10 RP k9/k10 m11 RKIP-P/RP k11 m2 k1 m3 k3 Raf-1*/RKIP/ERK-PP m2 RKIP k1/k2 m3 k3 k15 m13 k14

11 Why process algebras for pathways? Process algebras are high level formalisms that make interactions and constraints explicit. Structure becomes apparent. Reasoning about livelocks and deadlocks. Reasoning with (temporal) logics. Equivalence relations between high level descriptions. Stochastic process algebras allow performance analysis.

12 Process algebra (for dummies) High level descriptions of interaction, communication and synchronisation Event  (simple),  !34 (data offer),  ?x (data receipt) Prefix .S ChoiceS + S Synchronisation P |l| P   l independent concurrent (interleaved) actions   l synchronised action ConstantA = Sassign names to components LawsP1 + P2  P2 + P1 Relations  (bisimulation) a bc a aa a a c b b bc  

13 PEPA Process algebra with performance, invented by Jane Hillston Prefix( ,r).S ChoiceS + Scompetition between components (race) Cooperation/ P |l| Pa  l independent concurrent (interleaved) actions Synchronisation a  l shared action, at rate of slowest ConstantA = Sassign names to components P ::= S | P |l| P S ::= ( ,r).S | S+S | A

14 Rates is a rate, from which a probability is derived

15 Modelling the ERK Pathway in PEPA Each reaction is modelled by an event, which has a performance coefficient. Each protein is modelled by a process which synchronises others involved in a reaction. (reagent-centric view) Each sub-pathway is modelled by a process which synchronises with other sub-pathways. (pathway-centric view)

16 Signalling Dynamics m1 P1 m2 P2 k1/k2 m5 P5 K6/k7 m6 P6 m4 P5/P6 Reaction Producer(s) Consumer(s) k1react {P2,P1} {P1/P2} k2react {P1/P2} {P2,P1} k3product {P1/P2} {P5} … k1react will be a 3-way synchronisation, k2react will be a 3-way synchronisation, k3product will be a 2-way synchronisation. k4 m3 k3 P1/P2

17 Modelling Signalling Dynamics There is an important difference between computing science networks and biochemical networks We have to distinguish between the individual and the population. Previous approaches have modelled at molecular level (individual) –Simulation –State space explosion –Relation to population (what can be inferred?)

18 Signalling Dynamics m1 P1 m2 P2 k1/k2 m5 P5 k6/k7 m6 P6 m4 P5/P6 Reagent view: model whether or not a reagent can participate in a reaction (observable/unobservable). k4 m3 k3 P1/P2

19 Signalling Dynamics m1 P1 m2 P2 k1/k2 m5 P5 k6/k7 m6 P6 m4 P5/P6 Reagent view: model whether or not a reagent can participate in a reaction (observable/unobservable). : each reagent gives rise to a pair of definitions. P1 H = (k1react,k1). P1 L P1 L = (k2react,k1). P2 H P2 H = (k1react,k1). P2 L P2 L = (k2react,k2). P2 H + (k4react). P2 H P1/P2 H = (k2react,k2). P1/P2 L + (k3react, k3). P1/P2 L P1/P2 L = (k1react,k1). P1/P2 H P5 H = (k6react,k6). P5 L + (k4react,k4). P5 L P5 L = (k3react,k3). P5 H +(k7react,k7). P5 H P6 H = (k6react,k6). P6 L P6 L = (k7react,k7). P6 H P5/P6 H = (k7react,k7). P5/P6 L P5/P6 L = (k6react,k6). P5/P6 H k4 m3 k3 P1/P2

20 Signalling Dynamics m1 P1 m2 P2 k1/k2 m5 P5 K6/k7 m6 P6 m4 P5/P6 Reagent view: model configuration P1 H | k1react,k2react | P2 H | k1react,k2react,k4react | P1/P2 L | k1react,k2react,k3react | P5 L | k3react,k6react,k4react | P6 H | k6react,k7react | P5/P6 L Assuming initial concentrations of m1,m2,m6. k4 m3 k3 P1/P2

21 Reagent view: Raf-1* H = (k1react,k1). Raf-1* L + (k12react,k12). Raf-1* L Raf-1* L = (k5product,k5). Raf-1* H +(k2react,k2). Raf-1* H + (k13react,k13). Raf-1* H + (k14product,k14). Raf-1* H … (26 equations) m1 Raf-1* m2 k1 m3 Raf-1*/RKIP m12 MEK k12/k13 m7 MEK-PP k6/k7 m5 ERK m8 MEK-PP/ERK-P k8 m9 ERK-PP k3 m4 k5 m6 RKIP-P m10 RP k9/k10 m11 RKIP-P/RP k11 m2 k1 m3 k3 Raf-1*/RKIP/ERK-PP m2 RKIP k1/k2 m3 k3 k15 m13 k14

22 Signalling Dynamics Reagent view: model configuration Raf-1* H | k1react,k12react,k13react,k5product,k14product | RKIP H | k1react,k2react,k11product | Raf-1* H /RKIP L | k3react,k4react | Raf-1*/RKIP/ERK-PP L | k3react,k4react,k5product | ERK-P L | k5product,k6react,k7react | RKIP-P L | k9react,k10react | RKIP-P/RP L | k9react,k10react,k11product | RP H || MEK L | k12react,k13react,k15product | MEK/Raf-1* L | k14product | MEK-PP H | k8product,k6react,k7react | MEK-PP/ERK L | k8product | MEK-PP H | k8product | ERK-PP H

23 Signalling Dynamics m1 P1 m2 P2 k1/k2 m5 P5 K6/k7 m6 P6 m4 P5/P6 Pathway view: model chains of behaviour flow k4 m3 k3 P1/P2

24 Signalling Dynamics m1 P1 m2 P2 k1/k2 m5 P5 K6/k7 m6 P6 m4 P5/P6 Pathway view: model chains of behaviour flow. Two pathways, corresponding to initial concentrations: Path10 = (k1react,k1). Path11 Path11 = (k2react).Path10 + (k3product,k3).Path12 Path12 = (k4product,k4).Path10 + (k6react,k6).Path13 Path13 = (k7react,k7).Path12 Path20 = (k6react,k6). Path21 Path21 = (k7react,k6).Path20 Pathway view: model configuration Path10 | k6react,k7react | Path20 (much simpler!) k4 m3 k3 P1/P2

25 Pathway view: Pathway10 = (k9react,k9). Pathway11 Pathway11 = (k11product,k11). Pathway10 + (k10react,k10). Pathway10 … (5 pathways) m1 Raf-1* m2 k1 m3 Raf-1*/RKIP m12 MEK k12/k13 m7 MEK-PP k6/k7 m5 ERK m8 MEK-PP/ERK-P k8 m9 ERK-PP k3 m4 k5 m6 RKIP-P m10 RP k9/k10 m11 RKIP-P/RP k11 m2 k1 m3 k3 Raf-1*/RKIP/ERK-PP m2 RKIP k1/k2 m3 k3 k15 m13 k14

26 Pathway view: model configuration Pathway10 | k12react,k13react,k14product | Pathway40 | k3react,k4react,k5product,k6react,k7react,k8product | Pathway30 | k1react,k2react,k3react,k4react,k5product | Pathway20 | k9react,k10react,k11product | Pathway10

27 What is the difference? reagent-centric view is a fine grained view pathway-centric view is a coarse grained view –reagent-centric is easier to derive from data –pathway-centric allows one to build up networks from already known components Formal proof shows that those two models are equivalent! This equivalence proof, based on bisimulation, unites two views of the same biochemical pathway.

28 state reagent-view s1 Raf-1*H, RKIPH,Raf-1*/RKIPL,Raf-1*/RKIPERK-PPL, ERKL,RKIP-PL, RKIP-P/RPL, RPH, MEKL,MEK/Raf-1*L,MEK-PPH,MEK-PP/ERKL/ERK-PPH pathway view Pathway50,Pathway40,Pathway20,Pathway10 s2 …... s28 (28 states) State space of reagent and pathway model

29 State space of reagent and pathway model

30 Quantitative Analysis Generate steady-state probability distribution (using linear algebra). 1. Use state finder (in reagent model) to aggregate probabilities. Example increase k1 from 1 to 100 and the probability of being in a state with ERK-PP H drops from.257 to Perform throughput analysis (in pathway model)

31 Quantitative Analysis Effect of increasing the rate of k1 on k8product throughput (rate x probability) i.e. effect of binding of RKIP to Raf-1* on ERK-PP

32 Quantitative Analysis Effect of increasing the rate of k1 on k14product throughput (rate x probability) i.e. effect of binding of RKIP to Raf-1* on MEK-PP

33 Quantitative Analysis - Conclusion Increasing the rate of binding of RKIP to Raf-1* dampens down the k14product and k8product reactions, In other words, it dampens down the ERK pathway.

34 Signalling Dynamics m1 P1 m2 P2 k1/k2 m5 P5 K6/k7 m6 P6 m4 P5/P6 Activity matrix k1 k2k3 k4k5 k6 k7 P P P1/P P P P5/P Column: corresponds to a single reaction. Row: correspond to a reagent; entries indicate whether the concentration is +/- for that reaction. k4 m3 k3 P1/P2

35 Signalling Dynamics m1 P1 m2 P2 k1/k2 m5 P5 K6/k7 m6 P6 m4 P5/P6 Activity matrix k1 k2k3 k4k5 k6 k7 P P P1/P P P P5/P Differential equations Each row is labelled by a protein concentration. One equation per row. For row r, dr =  column c A[r,c]) *  row x f(A[x,c]) dt where f(A[x,c]) = if (A[x,c]== -) then x else 1 a rate is a product of the rate constant and current concentration of substrates consumed. k4 m3 k3 P1/P2

36 Signalling Dynamics m1 P1 m2 P2 k1/k2 m5 P5 K6/k7 m6 P6 m4 P5/P6 Activity matrix k1 k2k3 k4k5 k6 k7 P P P1/P P P P5/P Differential equations (mass action) dm1 = - k1 + k2 (two terms) dt k4 m3 k3 P1/P2

37 Signalling Dynamics m1 P1 m2 P2 k1/k2 m5 P5 K6/k7 m6 P6 m4 P5/P6 Activity matrix k1 k2k3 k4k5 k6 k7 P P P1/P P P P5/P Differential equations (mass action) dm1 = - k1*m1*m2 + k2 dt k4 m3 k3 P1/P2

38 Signalling Dynamics m1 P1 m2 P2 k1/k2 m5 P5 K6/k7 m6 P6 m4 P5/P6 Activity matrix k1 k2k3 k4k5 k6 k7 P P P1/P P P P5/P Differential equations (mass action) dm1 = - k1*m1*m2 + k2*m3 (nonlinear) dt k4 m3 k3 P1/P2

39 Signalling Dynamics m1 P1 m2 P2 k1/k2 m5 P5 K6/k7 m6 P6 m4 P5/P6 Differential equations (mass action) For RKIP inhibited ERK pathway, change in Raf-1* is: k4 m3 k3 P1/P2 dm1 = - k1*m1*m2 + k2*m3 + k5*m4 – k12*m1*m12 dt +k13*m13 + k14*m13 (catalysis, inhibition, etc. )

40 Discussion & Conclusions Regent-centric view –probabilities of states (H/L) –differential equations –fit with data Pathway-centric view –simpler model –building blocks, modularity approach –no further information is gained from having multiple levels. Life science –(some) see potential of an interaction approach Computing science –individual/population view –continuous, traditional mathematics

41 Further Challenges Derivation of the reagent-centric model from experimental data. Derivation of pathway-centric models from reagent-centric models and vice-versa. Quantification of abstraction over networks –“chop” off bits of network Model spatial dynamics (vesicles).

42 The End Thank you.