Natural Computing

, Volume 9, Issue 3, pp 603–624 | Cite as

Structure versus function: a topological perspective on immune networks

  • Emma Hart
  • Hugues Bersini
  • Francisco Santos


Many recent advances have been made in understanding the functional implications of the global topological properties of biological networks through the application of complex network theory, particularly in the area of small-world and scale-free topologies. Computational studies which attempt to understand the structure–function relationship usually proceed by defining a representation of cells and an affinity measure to describe their interactions. We show that this necessarily restricts the topology of the networks that can arise—furthermore, we show that although simple topologies can be produced via representation and affinity measures common in the literature, it is unclear how to select measures which result in complex topologies, for example, exhibiting scale-free functionality. In this paper, we introduce the concept of the potential network as a method in which abstract network topologies can be directly studied, bypassing any definition of shape-space and affinity function. We illustrate the benefit of the approach by studying the evolution of idiotypic networks on a selection of scale-free and regular topologies, finding that a key immunological property—tolerance—is promoted by bi-partite and heterogeneous topologies. The approach, however, is applicable to the study of any network and thus has implications for both immunology and artificial immune systems.


Topology Complex networks Artificial immune systems Tolerance 


  1. Albert R, Barabási AL (2002) Statistical mechanics of complex networks. Rev Mod Phys 74:47–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amaral LA, Scala A, Barthelemy M, Stanley HE (2000) Classes of small-world networks. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 97(21):11149–11152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barabási AL, Albert R (1999) Emergence of scaling in random networks. Science 286(5439):509–512CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. Barabási L, Oltvai Z (2004) Network biology: understanding the cell’s functional organization. Nat Rev Genet 5:101–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Behn U (2007) Idiotypic networks: towards a renaissance? Immunological Reviews 216:142–152Google Scholar
  6. Bersini H (2002) Self-assertion vs self-recogntion: a tribute to francisco varela. In: Proceedings of ICARIS 2002, pp 107–112Google Scholar
  7. Bersini H (2003) Revisiting immune networks. In: Proceedings of ECAL 2003, pp 191–198Google Scholar
  8. Bersini H, Lenaerts T, Santos FC (2006) Growing biological networks: beyond the gene-duplication model. J Theor Biol 241(3):488–505CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. Calenbuhr V, Bersini H, Stewart J, Varela F (1995) Natural tolerance in a simple immune network. J Theor Biol 177:199–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carneiro J, Stewart J (1994) Rethinking “Shape Space”: evidence from simulated docking suggests that steric shape complementarity is not limiting for antibody–antigen recognition and idiotypic interactions. J Theor Biol 169:390–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Carneiro J, Coutinho A, Stewart J (1996) A model of the immune network with B-T cell co-operation. II—the simulation of ontogenesis. J Theor Biol 182:531–554CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cohen IR (2007) Real and artificial immune systems: computing the state of the body. Immunol Rev 7:569–574Google Scholar
  13. Cohen IR, Quintana FJ, Mimran A (2004) T-regs in t-cell vaccination: exploring the regulation of regulation. J Clin Invest 114:1227–1232Google Scholar
  14. Coutinho A (2002) Immunology at the crossroads. EMBO Rep 3(11):1008–1011Google Scholar
  15. Coutinho A (2003) Will the idiotypic network help to solve natural tolerance? Trends Immunol 24(2):53–54Google Scholar
  16. De Castro L, Von Zuben F (2000) An evolutionary immune network for data clustering. Proceedings of the VI Brazilian symposium on neural networks (SBRN'00). IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, USA p 84Google Scholar
  17. Dorogotsev SN, Mendes JFF (2003) Evolution of networks: from biological nets to the internet and WWW. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  18. Dilger W (2006) Structural properties of shape-spaces. In: Proceedings of international conference on artificical immune systems (ICARIS), pp 178–192Google Scholar
  19. Dilger W, Strangeld S (2006) Properties of the bersini experiment on self-assertion. In: Proceedings of the genetic and evolutionary computation conference (GECCO), pp 95–102Google Scholar
  20. Frankenstein Z, Alon U, Cohen IR (2006) The immune-body cytokine network defines a social architecture of cell interactions. Biol Direct 1(32):1–15Google Scholar
  21. Guimerá R, Amaral LAN (2005) Functional cartography of complex metabolic networks. Nature 433:895–900Google Scholar
  22. Han J-DJ, Dupuy D, Bertin N, Cusick M, Vidal M (2005) Effect of sampling on topology predictions of protein–protein interaction networks. Nat Biotechnol 23(7):839–844Google Scholar
  23. Hart E (2005) Not all balls are round: an investigation of alternative recognition-region shapes. In: Jacob C, Pilat ML, Bentley PJ, Timmis JI (eds) Artificial immune systems, Proceedings of ICARIS 2005, vol 3627. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 9–42Google Scholar
  24. Hart E (2006) Analysis of a growth model for idiotypic networks. In: ICARIS 2006, Lecture notes in computer science, vol 4163. Springer, Berlin, pp 66–80Google Scholar
  25. Hart E, Ross P (2005) The impact of the shape of antibody recognition regions on the emergence of idiotypic networks. Int J Unconventional Comput 1(3):281–313Google Scholar
  26. Hart E, Bersini H, Santos FC (2006) Tolerance vs intolerance: how affinity defines topology in an idiotypic network. In: Jacob C, Pilat ML, Bentley PJ, Timmis JI (eds) ICARIS 2006, Lecture notes in computer science, vol 4163. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 109–121Google Scholar
  27. Hart E, Bersini H, Santos FC (2007a) Topological constraints in the evolution of idiotypic networks. In: ICARIS 2007, Lecture notes in computer science, vol 4628. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 252–263Google Scholar
  28. Hart E, Bersini H, Santos FC (2007b) How affinity influences tolerance in an idiotypic network. J Theor Biol 249(3):422–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ishiguro A, Kondo T, Watanabe Y, Uchikawa Y (1997) A reinforcement learning method for dynamic behavior arbitration of autonomous mobile robots based on the immunological information processing mechanisms. Trans IEE Japan, 117-C(1):42–49Google Scholar
  30. Jeong H, Mason SP, Barabsi A, Oltvai ZN (2001) Lethality and centrality in protein networks. Nature 411:41–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jerne N (1985) The generative grammar of the immune system. Science 4(4):439–451Google Scholar
  32. Lal G, Shaila MS, Nayak R (2006) Recombinant idiotypic tcrβ chain immunization in mice generates antigen specific T-cell response. Mol Immunol 43:1549–1556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. May RM, Lloyd AL (2001) Infection dynamics on scale-free networks. Phys Rev E 64(6 Pt 2):66112Google Scholar
  34. McEwan C, Hart E (2008) The problem with shape-space: boosting the immune system. In: ICARIS ’08: Proceedings of the 7th international conference on artificial immune system, pp 316–327Google Scholar
  35. McGuire KL, Holmes DS (2005) Role of complementary proteins in autoimmunity: a old idea re-emerges with new twists. Trends Immunol 26:367–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Newman MEJ (2003) Structure and function of complex networks. SIAM Rev 45:167–256zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  37. Pastor-Satorras R, Vespignani A (2001) Epidemic spreading in scale-free networks. Phys Rev Lett 86:3200Google Scholar
  38. Perelson A (1989) Immune network theory. Immunol Rev 10:5–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Price DJ (1965) Networks of scientific papers. Science 149:510–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Santos FC, Pacheco JM, Lenaerts T (2006) Evolutionary dynamics of social dilemmas in structured heterogeneous populations. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 103(9):3490–3494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Shoenfeld Y (2004) The idiotypic network in autoimmnunity. Nat Med 10:17–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Stewart J (2004) The affirmation of self: a new perspective on the immune system. Artif Life 10(3):261–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Stibor T, Timmis J (2007) An Investigation into the compression qualities of aiNET. In: Proceedings of Foundations of Computational Intelligence, FOCI 2007Google Scholar
  44. Stibor T, Timmis J, Eckert C (2006) On the use of hyperspheres in artificial immune systems as antibody recognition regions. In: Proceedings of ICARIS 2006, Lecture notes in computer science. Springer, Berlin, pp 215–228Google Scholar
  45. Stumpf MPH, Wiuf C, May RM (2005) Subnets of scale-free networks are not scale-free: sampling properties of networks. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102:4221–4224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Tanaka R, Yi TM, Doyle J (2005) Some protein interaction data do not exhibit power-law statistics. FEBS Lett 579:5140–5144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Timmis J, Neal M (2001) A resource limited artificial immune system for data analysis. Knowl Based Syst 14:121–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Timmis J, Andrews P, Owen N (2008) An interdisciplinary perspective on artificial immune systems. Evol Intell 1:5–26Google Scholar
  49. Tieri P, Valensin V, Latora V, Castellani GC2, Marchiori M, Remondini D, Franceschi C (2004) Quantifying the relevance of different mediators in the human immune cell network. Bioinformatics 21(8):1639–1643CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Tite JP (1986) Direct interactions between b and t lymphocytes bearing complementary Receptors. J Exp Med 163:189–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Whitbrook A, Aickelin U, Garibaldi JM (2007) Idiotypic immune networks in mobile-robot control. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern B 37(6):1581–1598 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Edinburgh Napier UniversityEdinburghScotland, UK
  2. 2.IRIDIA, Universite de BruxellesBruxellesBelgium

Personalised recommendations