Metastable Regimes and Tipping Points of Biochemical Networks with Potential Applications in Precision Medicine

  • Satya Swarup Samal
  • Jeyashree Krishnan
  • Ali Hadizadeh Esfahani
  • Christoph Lüders
  • Andreas Weber
  • Ovidiu RadulescuEmail author
Part of the Computational Biology book series (COBO, volume 30)


The concept of attractor of dynamic biochemical networks has been used to explain cell types and cell alterations in health and disease. We have recently proposed an extension of the notion of attractor to take into account metastable regimes, defined as long-lived dynamical states of the network. These regimes correspond to slow dynamics on low- dimensional invariant manifolds of the biochemical networks. Methods based on tropical geometry allow to compute the metastable regimes and represent them as polyhedra in the space of logarithms of the species concentrations. We are looking for sensitive parameters and tipping points of the networks by analyzing how these polyhedra depend on the model parameters. Using the coupled MAPK and PI3K/Akt signaling networks as an example, we test the idea that large changes of the metastable states can be associated with cancer-specific alterations of the network. In particular, we show that for model parameters representing protein concentrations, the protein differential level between tumors of different types is reasonably reflected in the sensitivity scores, with sensitive parameters corresponding to differential proteins.



This work was supported by the ANR/DFG grant ANR-17-CE40-0036 (project SYMBIONT) and CompSE profile area, RWTH Aachen University. We thank R. Larive and D. Santamaria for their critical reading of the manuscript and for useful discussions.


  1. 1.
    Aggarwal CC, Hinneburg A, Keim DA (2001) On the surprising behavior of distance metrics in high dimensional space. In: Van den Bussche J, Vianu V (eds) Database theory—ICDT 2001. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 420–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Atias N, Istrail S, Sharan R (2013) Pathway-based analysis of genomic variation data. Curr Opin Genet Dev 23(6):622–626CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y (1995) Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J R Stat Soc. Ser B (Methodological) 57(1):289–300MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Collins FS, Varmus H (2015) A new initiative on precision medicine. N Engl J Med 372(9):793–795CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
  6. 6.
  7. 7.
  8. 8.
    Dawei H, Yuan J-M (2006) Time-dependent sensitivity analysis of biological networks: coupled MAPK and PI3K signal transduction pathways. J Phys Chem A 110(16):5361–5370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dowell RD, Ryan O, Jansen A, Cheung D, Agarwala S, Danford T, Bernstein DA, Rolfe PA, Heisler LE, Chin B et al (2010) Genotype to phenotype: a complex problem. Science 328(5977):469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Drost H-G (2018) Philentropy: similarity and distance quantification between probability functions. R package version 0.1.0Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fritsche-Guenther R, Witzel F, Sieber A, Herr R, Schmidt N, Braun S, Brummer T, Sers C, Blüthgen N (2011) Strong negative feedback from Erk to Raf confers robustness to MAPK signalling. Mol Syst Biol 7(1):489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Goldbeter A, Koshland DE (1984) Ultrasensitivity in biochemical systems controlled by covalent modification interplay between zero-order and multistep effects. J Biol Chem 259(23):14441–14447Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Grieco L, Calzone L, Bernard-Pierrot I, Radvanyi F, Kahn-Perles B, Thieffry D (2013) Integrative modelling of the influence of MAPK network on cancer cell fate decision. PLoS Comput Biol 9(10):e1003286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hatakeyama M, Kimura S, Naka T, Kawasaki T, Yumoto N, Ichikawa M, Kim J-H, Saito K, Saeki M, Shirouzu M et al (2003) A computational model on the modulation of mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) and Akt pathways in heregulin-induced ErbB signalling. Biochem J 373(Pt 2):451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hollander M, Wolfe DA (1999) Nonparametric statistical methodsGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Klinger B, Sieber A, Fritsche-Guenther R, Witzel F, Berry L, Schumacher D, Yan Y, Durek P, Merchant M, Schäfer R et al (2013) Network quantification of EGFR signaling unveils potential for targeted combination therapy. Mol Syst Biol 9(1):673CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    LaValle SM (2006) Planning algorithms. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Le Novere N, Bornstein B, Broicher A, Courtot M, Donizelli M, Harish Dharuri L, Li HS, Schilstra M, Shapiro B, Snoep JL, Hucka M (2006) BioModels database: a free, centralized database of curated, published, quantitative kinetic models of biochemical and cellular systems. Nucl Acids Res 34(suppl 1):D689–D691CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Li J, Lu Y, Akbani R, Ju Z, Roebuck PL, Liu W, Yang J-Y, Broom BM, Verhaak RGW, Kane DW et al (2013) TCPA: a resource for cancer functional proteomics data. Nat Methods 10(11):1046CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
  21. 21.
    Lüders C PtCut: Calculate tropical equilibrations and prevarieties.
  22. 22.
    Noel V, Grigoriev D, Vakulenko S, Radulescu O (2012) Tropical geometries and dynamics of biochemical networks application to hybrid cell cycle models. Electron Notes Theor Comput Sci 284:75–91MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Obuchowski NA (2003) Receiver operating characteristic curves and their use in radiology. Radiology 229(1):3–8 PMID: 14519861MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Radulescu O, Vakulenko S, Grigoriev D (2015) Model reduction of biochemical reactions networks by tropical analysis methods. Math Model Nat Phenom 10(3):124–138MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Radulescu O, Samal SS, Naldi A, Grigoriev D, Weber A (2015) Symbolic dynamics of biochemical pathways as finite states machines. In: International conference on computational methods in systems biology. Springer, Berlin, pp 104–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Rizk A, Batt G, Fages F, Soliman S (2009) A general computational method for robustness analysis with applications to synthetic gene networks. Bioinformatics 25(12):i169–i178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Robin X, Turck N, Hainard A, Tiberti N, Lisacek F, Sanchez J-C, Müller M (2011) pROC: an open-source package for R and S\(+\) to analyze and compare ROC curves. BMC Bioinform 12:77Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Rutherford SL (2000) From genotype to phenotype: buffering mechanisms and the storage of genetic information. Bioessays 22(12):1095–1105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Samal SS, Grigoriev D, Fröhlich H, Radulescu O (2015) Analysis of reaction network systems using tropical geometry. In: Gerdt VP, Koepf W, Seiler WM, Vorozhtsov EV (eds) Computer algebra in scientific computing – 17th international workshop (CASC 2015), vol 9301. Lecture notes in computer science. Springer, Aachen, pp 422–437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Samal SS, Grigoriev D, Fröhlich H, Weber A, Radulescu O (2015) A geometric method for model reduction of biochemical networks with polynomial rate functions. Bull Math Biol 77(12):2180–2211MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Samal SS, Naldi A, Grigoriev D, Weber A, Théret N, Radulescu O (2016) Geometric analysis of pathways dynamics: application to versatility of TGF-\(\beta \) receptors. Biosystems 149:3–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sos ML, Fischer S, Ullrich R, Peifer M, Heuckmann JM, Koker M, Heynck S, Stückrath I, Weiss J, Fischer F et al (2009) Identifying genotype-dependent efficacy of single and combined PI3K-and MAPK-pathway inhibition in cancer. Proc Natl Acad Scie 106(43):18351–18356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Strohman R (2002) Maneuvering in the complex path from genotype to phenotype. Science 296(5568):701–703CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
  35. 35.
  36. 36.
    Yoon J, Deisboeck TS (2009) Investigating differential dynamics of the MAPK signaling cascade using a multi-parametric global sensitivity analysis. PloS One 4(2):e4560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Zi Z (2011) Sensitivity analysis approaches applied to systems biology models. IET Syst Biol 5(6):336–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Satya Swarup Samal
    • 1
    • 2
  • Jeyashree Krishnan
    • 3
  • Ali Hadizadeh Esfahani
    • 1
    • 2
  • Christoph Lüders
    • 4
  • Andreas Weber
    • 4
  • Ovidiu Radulescu
    • 5
    Email author
  1. 1.Joint Research Center for Computational BiomedicineRWTH Aachen UniversityAachenGermany
  2. 2.BASF SELudwigshafenGermany
  3. 3.AICES Graduate SchoolRWTH Aachen UniversityAachenGermany
  4. 4.Department of Computer Science IIUniversity of BonnBonnGermany
  5. 5.DIMNP UMR CNRS 5235University of MontpellierMontpellierFrance

Personalised recommendations