Leveraging Modeling Approaches: Reaction Networks and Rules

  • Michael L. BlinovEmail author
  • Ion I. Moraru
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology book series (AEMB, volume 736)


We have witnessed an explosive growth in research involving mathematical models and computer simulations of intracellular molecular interactions, ranging from metabolic pathways to signaling and gene regulatory networks. Many software tools have been developed to aid in the study of such biological systems, some of which have a wealth of features for model building and visualization, and powerful capabilities for simulation and data analysis. Novel high-resolution and/or high-throughput experimental techniques have led to an abundance of qualitative and quantitative data related to the spatiotemporal distribution of molecules and complexes, their interactions kinetics, and functional modifications. Based on this information, computational biology researchers are attempting to build larger and more detailed models. However, this has proved to be a major challenge. Traditionally, modeling tools require the explicit specification of all molecular species and interactions in a model, which can quickly become a major limitation in the case of complex networks – the number of ways biomolecules can combine to form multimolecular complexes can be combinatorially large. Recently, a new breed of software tools has been created to address the problems faced when building models marked by combinatorial complexity. These have a different approach for model specification, using reaction rules and species patterns. Here we compare the traditional modeling approach with the new rule-based methods. We make a case for combining the capabilities of conventional simulation software with the unique features and flexibility of a rule-based approach in a single software platform for building models of molecular interaction networks.


Species Type Reaction Network Molecular Entity Steric Clash Reaction Rule 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Slepchenko BM, Schaff JC, Macara I, Loew LM (2003) Quantitative cell biology with the virtual cell. Trends Cell Biol 13(11):570–576PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Moraru II, Schaff JC, Slepchenko BM et al (2008) Virtual cell modelling and simulation software environment. IET Syst Biol 2(5):352–362PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Funahashi A (2003) The ERATO systems biology workbench and systems biology markup language: an integrated environment and standardization for systems biology. Tanpakushitsu Kakusan Koso 48(7):810–816PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hoops S, Sahle S, Gauges R et al (2006) COPASI – a COmplex PAthway SImulator. Bioinformatics 22(24):3067–3074PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kholodenko BN, Demin OV, Moehren G, Hoek JB (1999) Quantification of short term signaling by the epidermal growth factor receptor. J Biol Chem 274(42):30169–30181PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hatakeyama M, Kimura S, Naka T 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):451–463PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Schoeberl B, Eichler-Jonsson C, Gilles ED, Muller G (2002) Computational modeling of the dynamics of the MAP kinase cascade activated by surface and internalized EGF receptors. Nat Biotechnol 20(4):370–375PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Blinov ML, Ruebenacker O, Schaff JC, Moraru II (2010) Modeling without borders: creating and annotating VCell models using the web. Lecture Notes Bionform 6053:3–17Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Blinov ML, Faeder JR, Goldstein B, Hlavacek WS (2006) A network model of early events in epidermal growth factor receptor signaling that accounts for combinatorial complexity. Biosystems 83(2–3):136–151PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mayer B, Blinov M, Loew L (2009) Molecular machines or pleiomorphic ensembles: signaling complexes revisited. J Biol 8(9):81PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Schulze WX, Deng L, Mann M (2005) Phosphotyrosine interactome of the ErbB-receptor kinase family. Mol Syst Biol 1:2005.0008Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hlavacek WS, Faeder JR, Blinov ML, Posner RG, Hucka M, Fontana W (2006) Rules for modeling signal-transduction systems. Sci STKE 2006(344):re6Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Blinov ML, Faeder JR, Goldstein B, Hlavacek WS (2004) BioNetGen: software for rule-based modeling of signal transduction based on the interactions of molecular domains. Bioinformatics 20(17):3289–3291PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Faeder JR, Blinov ML, Goldstein B, Hlavacek WS (2005) Rule-based modeling of biochemical networks. Complexity 10:22–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pawson T, Nash P (2003) Assembly of cell regulatory systems through protein interaction domains. Science 300(5618):445–452PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Faeder JR, Blinov ML, Goldstein B, Hlavacek WS (2005) Combinatorial complexity and dynamical restriction of network flows in signal transduction. Syst Biol 2(1):5–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lok L, Brent R (2005) Automatic generation of cellular reaction networks with Moleculizer 1.0. Nat Biotechnol 23(1):131–136Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Yang J, Monine MI, Faeder JR, Hlavacek WS (2008) Kinetic Monte Carlo method for rule-based modeling of biochemical networks. Phys Rev E: Stat Nonlinear Soft Matter Phys 78(3 Pt 1):031910CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Colvin J, Monine MI, Faeder JR, Hlavacek WS, Von Hoff DD, Posner RG (2009) Simulation of large-scale rule-based models. Bioinformatics 25(7):910–917PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Colvin J, Monine MI, Gutenkunst RN, Hlavacek WS, Von Hoff DD, Posner RG (2010) RuleMonkey: software for stochastic simulation of rule-based models. BMC Bioinform 11:404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Faeder JR, Blinov ML, Hlavacek WS (2009) Rule-based modeling of biochemical systems with BioNetGen. Meth Mol Biol 500:113–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Danos V, Feret J, Fontana W, Krivine J (2007) Scalable simulation of cellular signaling networks. Lect Notes Comput Sci 4807:139–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Blinov ML, Yang J, Faeder JR, Hlavacek WS (2006) Graph theory for rule-based modeling of biochemical networks. Trans Comput Syst Biol Vii 4230:89–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Blinov ML, Yang J, Faeder JR, Hlavacek WS (2006) Depicting signaling cascades. Nat Biotechnol 24(2):137–138PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Le Novere N, Hucka M, Mi H et al (2009) The systems biology graphical notation. Nat Biotechnol 27(8):735–741PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kohn KW (2001) Molecular interaction maps as information organizers and simulation guides. Chaos 11(1):84–97PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Chylek LA, Hu B, Blinov ML et al (2011) Guidelines for visualizing and annotating rule-based models. Mol Biosyst 7(10):2779–2795PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kohn KW, Aladjem MI, Kim S, Weinstein JN, Pommier Y (2006) Depicting combinatorial complexity with the molecular interaction map notation. Mol Syst Biol 2:51PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Xu W, Smith AM, Faeder JR, Marai GE (2011) RuleBender: a visual interface for rule-based modeling. Bioinformatics 27(12):1721–1722PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    An GC, Faeder JR (2009) Detailed qualitative dynamic knowledge representation using a BioNetGen model of TLR-4 signaling and preconditioning. Math Biosci 217(1):53–63PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Faeder JR, Hlavacek WS, Reischl I, Blinov ML, Metzger H, Redondo A, Wofsy C, Goldstein B (2003) Investigation of early events in Fc epsilon RI-mediated signaling using a detailed mathematical model. J Immunol 170(7):3769–3781PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Lipniacki T, Hat B, Faeder JR, Hlavacek WS (2008) Stochastic effects and bistability in T cell receptor signaling. J Theor Biol 254(1):110–122PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Mu F, Williams RF, Unkefer CJ, Unkefer PJ, Faeder JR, Hlavacek WS (2007) Carbon-fate maps for metabolic reactions. Bioinformatics 23(23):3193–3199PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Nag A, Monine MI, Blinov ML, Goldstein B (2010) A detailed mathematical model predicts that serial engagement of IgE-FcepsilonRI complexes can enhance Syk activation in mast cells. J Immunol 185(6):3268–3276PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Le Novere N, Shimizu TS (2001) STOCHSIM: modelling of stochastic biomolecular processes. Bioinformatics 17(6):575–576PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Meier-Schellersheim M, Klauschen F, Angermann B (2009) Computational modeling of signaling networks for eukaryotic chemosensing. Meth Mol Biol 571:507–526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Hucka M, Finney A, Sauro HM et al (2003) The systems biology markup language (SBML): a medium for representation and exchange of biochemical network models. Bioinformatics 19(4):524–531PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Demir E, Cary MP, Paley S et al (2010) The BioPAX community standard for pathway data sharing. Nat Biotechnol 28(9):935–942PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Cell Analysis and ModelingUniversity of Connecticut Health CenterFarmingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations