Equivalence and Discretisation in Bio-PEPA

  • Vashti Galpin
  • Jane Hillston
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5688)


Bio-PEPA is a process algebra for modelling biological systems. An important aspect of Bio-PEPA is the ability it provides to discretise concentrations resulting in a smaller, more manageable state space. The discretisation is based on a step size which determines the size of each discrete level and also the maximum number of levels. This paper considers the relationship between two discretisations of the same Bio-PEPA model that differ only in the step size and hence the maximum number of levels, by using the idea of equivalence from concurrency and process algebra. We present a novel behavioural semantic equivalence, compression bisimulation, that equates two discretisations of the same model and we show that this equivalence is a congruence with respect to the synchronisation operator.


Equivalence Class Equivalence Relation System Biology Transition System Model Component 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Blossey, R., Cardelli, L., Phillips, A.: A compositional approach to the stochastic dynamics of gene networks. In: Priami, C., Cardelli, L., Emmott, S. (eds.) Transactions on Computational Systems Biology IV. LNCS (LNBI), vol. 3939, pp. 99–122. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Danos, V., Laneve, C.: Formal molecular biology. Theoretical Computer Science 325, 69–110 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Priami, C., Regev, A., Shapiro, E., Silverman, W.: Application of a stochastic name-passing calculus to representation and simulation of molecular processes. Information Processing Letters 80, 25–31 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Priami, C., Quaglia, P.: Beta binders for biological interactions. In: Danos, V., Schächter, V. (eds.) CMSB 2004. LNCS (LNBI), vol. 3082, pp. 20–33. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Regev, A., Panina, E., Silverman, W., Cardelli, L., Shapiro, E.: BioAmbients: an abstraction for biological compartments. Theoretical Computer Science 325, 141–167 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ciocchetta, F., Hillston, J.: Bio-PEPA: a framework for the modelling and analysis of biological systems. Theoretical Computer Science (in press)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hillston, J.: A compositional approach to performance modelling. CUP (1996)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ciocchetta, F., Hillston, J.: Calculi for biological systems. In: Formal Methods for Computational Systems Biology. In: SFM 2008. LNCS, vol. 5016, pp. 265–312. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ciocchetta, F.: Bio-PEPA with SBML-like events. In: Back, R.J., Petre, I. (eds.) Proceedings of the Workshop on Computational Models for Cell Processes, pp. 11–22 (2008)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ciocchetta, F., Hillston, J.: Bio-PEPA: a framework for the modelling and analysis of biological systems. Technical Report EDI-INF-RR-1231, School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh (2008)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ellavarason, K.: An automatic mapping from the Systems Biology Markup Language to the Bio-PEPA process algebra. Master’s thesis, University of Trento (2008)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Akman, O.E., Ciocchetta, F., Degasperi, A., Guerriero, M.L.: Modelling biological clocks with Bio-PEPA: stochasticity and robustness for the Neurospora Crassa circadian network. To appear in Proceedings of CMSB 2009 (2009)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Guerriero, M.L.: Qualitative and quantitative analysis of a Bio-PEPA model of the gp130/JAK/STAT signalling pathway. To appear in TCSBGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Milner, R.: Communication and concurrency. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1989)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Regev, A., Shapiro, E.: Cellular abstractions: Cells as computation. Nature 419, 343 (2002)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Laneve, C., Tarissan, F.: A simple calculus for proteins and cells. Theoretical Computer Science 404, 127–141 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pinto, M.C., Foss, L., Mombach, J.C.M., Ribeiro, L.: Modelling, property verification and behavioural equivalence of lactose operon regulation. Computers in Biology and Medicine 37, 134–148 (2007)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Antoniotti, M., Piazza, C., Policriti, A., Simeoni, M., Mishra, B.: Taming the complexity of biochemical models through bisimulation and collapsing: theory and practice. Theoretical Computer Science 325, 45–67 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ciobanu, G., Aman, B.: On the relationship between membranes and ambients. BioSystems (91), 515–530 (2008)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Barbuti, R., Maggiolo-Schettini, A., Milazzo, P., Troina, A.: Bisimulation in calculi modelling membranes. Formal Aspects of Computing 20, 351–377 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vashti Galpin
    • 1
  • Jane Hillston
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.LFCS, School of InformaticsUniversity of EdinburghScotland
  2. 2.Centre for Systems Biology (CSBE)University of EdinburghScotland

Personalised recommendations