Abstract
This chapter deals with the effect Systems Biology had on the Nature of what we consider ‘an explanation’ in Biological Science. I try and demonstrate how the most relevant change carried out by Systems Biology approach was the shift from the molecular layer as the definitive place where causative process start to the elucidation of the among elements (at any level of biological organization they are located) interaction network as the main goal of scientific explanations. This change of perspective allows to dissipate a widespread idealistic nightmare looking at the single molecules as Maxwell-demon-like intelligent agents. The recognition that genes work in networks has as consequence the existence of discrete ‘allowed global modes’ of gene expression. This theoretical expectation was verified by the incredibly narrowspace of different tissues (each corresponding to a largely invariant gene expression profile)—around 200 tissue types for all the metazoans emerging from the transfinite number of possible combinations of the expression values of around 30,000 genes. This is a crucial step for generating a scientifically sound framework to address global biological regulation.
Systems Biology approach makes obsolete the debate between ‘reductionist’ and ‘holistic’ approach in favor of a ‘middle-out’ paradygm formally identical to the time honored chemical thought. This is probably the brightest promise of Systems Biology to scientific knowledge.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Benigni R, Giuliani A (1994) Quantitative modeling and biology: the multivariate approach. Am J Physiol 266(35):R1697–R1704
Catalani A, Alemà GS et al (2011) Maternal corticosterone effects on hypothalamus-pituitary-adrenal axis regulation and behavior of the offspring in rodents. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 7:1502–1517
Censi F, Giuliani A, Bartolini P et al (2011) A multiscale graph theoretical approach to gene regulation networks: a case study in atrial fibrillation. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 58(10):2943–2946
Csermely P, AgostonV, Pongor S (2005) The efficiency of multi-target drugs: the network approach might help drug design. Trends Phramacol Sci 26:178–182
Dill KA, Chan HS (1997) From Levinthal to pathways to funnels. Nat Struct Biol 4:10–19
Di Paola L, De Ruvo M, Paci P, Santoni D, GiulianiA (2012) Protein contact networks: an emerging paradigm in chemistry. Chem Rev (in press)
Felli N, Cianetti L, Pelosi E et al (2010) Hematopoietic differentiation: a coordinated dynamical process towards attractor stable states. BMC Syst Biol 4:85
Frauenfelder H, Sligar SG, Wolynes P (1991) The energy landscapes and motions of proteins. Science 254:1598–1603
Fredenslund A, Gmehling J, Rasmussen P (1979) Vapor-liquid equilibria using UNIFAC: a group contribution method. Elsevier Scientific, NewYork
Gerstein MB, Kundaje A, Hariharan M et al (2012) Architecture of the human regulatory network derived from ENCODE data. Nature 489:91–100
Giuliani A (2010) Collective motions and specific effectors: a statistical mechanics perspective on biological regulation. BMC Genomics 11(Suppl 1):S2
Hopkins AL (2008) Network pharmacology: the next paradigm in drug discovery. Nat Chem Biol 11:682–690
Huang S (2009) Reprogramming cell fates: reconciling rarity with robustness. Bioessays 31:546–560
Huang S, Eichler G, Bar-Yam Y et al (2005) Cell fates as high-dimensional attractor states of a complex gene regulatory network. Phys Rev Lett 94:128701–12870 5
Hyman AA, Simons K (2012) Beyond oil and water: phase transitions in cells. Science 337:1047–1049
Ingber D (1999) How cells (might) sense microgravity. FASEB J 13 (Suppl):S13–S15
Jordan B (2012) Are expression profiles meaningless for cancer studies? Bioessays 34:730–733
Karsenti E (2008) Self organization in cell biology, a brief history. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 9:255
Kauffman SA (1993) The origins of order. Oxford University, NewYork
Laughlin RB, Pines D et al (2000) The middle way. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 97:32–37
Levinthal C (1969) How to fold graciously. In: De Brunner JTP, Munch E (eds) Mossbauer spectroscopy in biological systems. University of Illinois press, Illinois, pp 22–24
MacFarlane RG (1964) An enzyme cascade in the blood clotting mechanism, and its function as a biochemical amplifier. Nature 202:498–499
Malenka RC, Nicoll RA (1993) NMDA-receptor-dependent synaptic plasticity: multiple forms and mechanisms. Trends Neurosci 16(12):521–527
Overington JP, Al-Lazikani B, Hopkins JL (2006) How many drug targets are there? Nat Rev Drug Discov 5:993–996
Palumbo MC, Colosimo A, Giuliani A, Farina L (2005) Functional essentiality from topology features in metabolic networks: a case study in yeast. FEBS Lett 579:4642–4646
Palumbo MC, Colosimo A et al (2007) Essentiality is an emergent property of metabolic network wiring. FEBS Lett 581(13):2485–2489
Russell D, Lasker K et al (2009) The structural dynamics of macromolecular processes. Curr Opin Cell Biol 21:97–108
Rzhetsky A, Iossifov I et al (2006) Microparadigms: chains of collective reasoning in publication about molecular interactions. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 103:4940–4945
Sebastian JL, Munoz S et al (2001) Analysis of the influence of the cell geometry, orientation and cell proximity effects on the electric field distribution from direct RF exposure. Phys Med Biol 46:213–219
Shakhnovic E (2006) Protein folding thermodynamics and dynamics: where physics, chemistry and biology meet. Chem Rev 106(5):1559–1588
Tompa P, Rose G (2011) The Levinthal paradox of interactome. Protein Sci 20:2074–2079
Tsuchiya M, Piras V, Giuliani A et al (2010) Collective dynamics of specific gene ensembles crucial for neutrophil differentiation: the existence of genome vehicles revealed. PLoS ONE 5(8):e12116
Tun K, Menghini M, D’Andrea L, Tanaka H, Dhar P, Giuliani A (2011) Why so few drug targets: a mathematical explanation? Curr Comput Aided Drug Des 7(3):206–213
Venet D, Dumont JE, Detours V (2011) Most random gene expression signatures are significantly associated with breast cancer outcome. PLoS Comput Biol 7(10):e1002240
Von Dassow G, Meir E et al (2000) The segment polarity network is a robust developmental module. Nature 406:188–192
Waddington CH (1957) The strategy of the genes: a discussion of some aspects of theoretical biology. Macmillan, NewYork
Watts DJ, Strogatz SH (2004) Collective dynamics of ‘small world’ networks. Nat Rev Genet 5:101–113
Yamanaka S (2009) Elite and stochastic models for induced pluripotent stem cell generation. Nature 460:49–52
Yamanaka S, Blau HM (2010) Nuclear reprogramming to a pluri-potent state by three approaches. Nature 465:704–710
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Giuliani, A. (2015). Why Systems Biology Can Promote a New Way of Thinking. In: Singh, V., Dhar, P. (eds) Systems and Synthetic Biology. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9514-2_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9514-2_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-017-9513-5
Online ISBN: 978-94-017-9514-2
eBook Packages: Biomedical and Life SciencesBiomedical and Life Sciences (R0)