Advertisement

Deriving Differential Equations from Process Algebra Models in Reagent-Centric Style

  • Jane HillstonEmail author
  • Adam Duguid
Chapter
Part of the Natural Computing Series book series (NCS)

Abstract

The reagent-centric style of modeling allows stochastic process algebra models of biochemical signaling pathways to be developed in an intuitive way. Furthermore, once constructed, the models are amenable to analysis by a number of different mathematical approaches including both stochastic simulation and coupled ordinary differential equations. In this chapter, we give a tutorial introduction to the reagent-centric style, in PEPA and Bio-PEPA, and the way in which such models can be used to generate systems of ordinary differential equations.

Keywords

Stochastic Simulation Process Algebra System Biology Markup Language Sequential Component Discrete State Space 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Arkin AP, Rao CV (2003) Stochastic chemical kinetics and the quasi-steady-state assumption: application to the Gillespie algorithm. J Chem Phys 1:4999–5010 Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    van Bakel S, Kahn I, Vigliotti M, Heath J (2007) Modeling intracellular fate of FGF receptors with bio-ambients. Electron Notes Comput Sci Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Barbuti R, Maggiolo-Schettini A, Milazzo P, Troina A (2005) A calculus of looping sequences for modeling microbiological systems. In: Proceedings of CS&P’05, 14th international workshop on concurrency specification and programming. Warsaw University, Warsaw, pp 29–40 Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bornstein BJ, Doyle JC, Finney A, Funahashi A, Hucka M, Keating SM, Kitano H, Kovitz BL, Matthews J, Shapiro BE, Schilstra MJ (2004) Evolving a lingua franca and associated software infrastructure for computational systems biology: the systems biology markup language (SBML) project. Syst Biol 1:41–53 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bortolussi L, Policriti A (2006) Modeling biological systems in stochastic concurrent constraint programming. In: Proceedings of WCB 2006 Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bruns G (1997) Distributed systems analysis with CCS. Prentice–Hall, New York Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Calder M, Gilmore S, Hillston J (2005) Automatically deriving ODEs from process algebra models of signaling pathways. In: Proceedings of CMSB’05, pp 204–215 Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Calder M, Gilmore S, Hillston J (2006) Modeling the influence of RKIP on the ERK signaling pathway using the stochastic process algebra PEPA. In: Transactions on computational systems biology VII. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 4230. Springer, Berlin, pp 1–23 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Calder M, Duguid A, Gilmore S, Hillston J (2006) Stronger computational modeling of signaling pathways using both continuous and discrete-space methods. In: Proceedings of CMSB’06. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 4210. Springer, Berlin, pp 63–77 Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cao Y, Gillespie DT, Petzold L (2005) Accelerated stochastic simulation of the stiff enzyme-substrate reaction. J Chem Phys 123(14):144917–144929 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cardelli L (2005) Brane calculi—interactions of biological membranes. In: Proceedings of workshop on computational methods in systems biology (CMSB’04). Lecture notes in computer science, vol 3082. Springer, Berlin, pp 257–278 Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cardelli L, Panina EM, Regev A, Shapiro E, Silverman W (2004) BioAmbients: an abstraction for biological compartments. Theor Comput Sci 325(1):141–167 zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cardelli L (2006) Artificial biochemistry. Technical Report TR-08-2006, The Microsoft Research, University of Trento Centre for Computational and Systems Biology Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cardelli L (2008) On process rate semantics. Theor Comput Sci 391(3):190–215 zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chabrier-Rivier N, Fages F, Soliman S (2004) Modeling and querying interaction networks in the biochemical abstract machine BIOCHAM. J Biol Phys Chem 4:64–73 Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chiarugi D, Degano P, Marangoni R (2007) A computational approach to the functional screening of genomes. PLOS Comput Biol 9:1801–1806 MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cho K-H, Shin S-Y, Lee H-W, Wolkenhauer O (2003) Investigations into the analysis and modeling of the TNFα-mediated NF-κB-signaling pathway. Genome Res 13:2413–2422 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ciocchetta F, Hillston J (2008) Bio-PEPA: an extension of the process algebra PEPA for biochemical networks. Electron Notes Theor Comput Sci 194(3):103–117 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ciocchetta F, Hillston J (2008) Bio-PEPA: a framework for the modeling and analysis of biological systems. Technical Report of the School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh, EDI-INF-RR-1231 Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Clark A, Gilmore S, Hillston J, Tribastone M (2007) Stochastic process algebras. In: Formal methods in performance modeling, Bertinoro, June 2007. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 4486. Springer, Berlin, pp 132–179 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Danos V, Krivine J (2003) Formal molecular biology done in CCS-R. In: Proceedings of workshop on concurrent models in molecular biology (BioConcur’03) Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Danos V, Feret J, Fontana W, Harmer R, Krivine J (2007) Ruled-based modeling of cellular signaling. In: Proceedings of CONCUR’07. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 4703. Springer, Berlin Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Eichler-Jonsson C, Gilles ED, Muller G, Schoeberl B (2002) Computational modeling of the dynamics of the MAP kinase cascade activated by surface and internalized EGF receptors. Nat Biotechnol 20:370–375 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gillespie DT (1977) Exact stochastic simulation of coupled chemical reactions. J Phys Chem 81:2340–2361 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hillston J (1996) A Compositional approach to performance modeling. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hoare CAR (1985) Communicating sequential processes. Prentice–Hall, New York zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Milner R (1989) Communication and concurrency. International series in computer science, Prentice–Hall, New York zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Milner R (1999) Communicating and mobile systems: the π-calculus. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    NuMSV model checker. http://nusmv.irst.itc.it
  30. 30.
    Priami C, Quaglia P (2005) Beta-binders for biological interactions. In: Proceedings of CMSB’04. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 3082. Springer, Berlin, pp 20–33 Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Priami C (1995) Stochastic π-calculus. Comput J 38(6):578–589 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Priami C, Regev A, Silverman W, Shapiro E (2001) Application of a stochastic name-passing calculus to representation and simulation of molecular processes. Inf Process Lett 80:25–31 zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Regev A (2001) Representation and simulation of molecular pathways in the stochastic π-calculus. In: Proceedings of the 2nd workshop on computation of biochemical pathways and genetic networks Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Regev A, Shapiro E (2002) Cells as computation. Nature 419:343 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Wolkenhauer O, Ullah M, Kolch W, Cho KH (2004) Modeling and simulation of intracellular dynamics: choosing an appropriate framework. IEEE Trans Nanobiosci 3:200–207 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of InformaticsThe University of EdinburghEdinburghScotland

Personalised recommendations