Systems and Synthetic Biology

, Volume 7, Issue 4, pp 161–173 | Cite as

A model of epigenetic evolution based on theory of open quantum systems

  • Masanari Asano
  • Irina Basieva
  • Andrei Khrennikov
  • Masanori Ohya
  • Yoshiharu Tanaka
  • Ichiro Yamato
Research Article


We present a very general model of epigenetic evolution unifying (neo-)Darwinian and (neo-)Lamarckian viewpoints. The evolution is represented in the form of adaptive dynamics given by the quantum(-like) master equation. This equation describes development of the information state of epigenome under the pressure of an environment. We use the formalism of quantum mechanics in the purely operational framework. (Hence, our model has no direct relation to quantum physical processes inside a cell.) Thus our model is about probabilities for observations which can be done on epigenomes and it does not provide a detailed description of cellular processes. Usage of the operational approach provides a possibility to describe by one model all known types of cellular epigenetic inheritance.


Epigenetic markers Quantum-like operational model Cellular epigenetic evolution Neo-Darwinism Neo-Lamarckism Open quantum systems 



This paper was written under the support of the grant Quantum Bio-Informatics of Tokyo University of Science and the grant Mathematical Modeling of Complex Information Systems of Linnaeus University. Intensive discussions related to the last version of the paper took place during the visit of one of coauthors (A. Kh.) to Tokyo University of Science, February–March 2013. He would like to thank N. Watanabe for hospitality.


  1. Accardi L, Khrennikov A, Ohya M (2008) The problem of quantum-like representation in economy, cognitive science, and genetics. In: Accardi L, Freudenberg W, Ohya M (eds) Quantum bio-informatics II: from quantum information to bio-informatics. WSP, Singapore, pp 1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Accardi L, Adenier G, Fuchs C A, Jaeger G, Khrennikov A, Larsson J-A, Stenholm S (eds) (2009) Foundations of probability and physics-5. In: Ser. conference proceedings 1101, American Institute of Physics, Melville, NYGoogle Scholar
  3. Asano M, Ohya M, Khrennikov A (2010a) Quantum-like model for decision making process in two players game. Found Phys 41(3):538–548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Asano M, Ohya M, Tanaka Y, Khrennikov A, Basieva I (2010b) On application of Gorini-Kossakowski-Sudarshan-Lindblad equation in cognitive psychology. Open Syst Inf Dyn 17:1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Asano M, Basieva I, Khrennikov A, Ohya M, Yamato I (2011a) A general quantum information model for the contextual dependent systems breaking the classical probability law. ArXiv:1105.4769Google Scholar
  6. Asano M, Ohya M, Tanaka Yu, Khrennikov A, Basieva I (2011b) Dynamics of entropy in quantum-like model of decision making. J Theor Biol 281:56–64PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Asano M, Basieva I, Khrennikov A, Ohya M, Tanaka Yu, Yamato I (2012a) Quantum-like model for the adaptive dynamics of the genetic regulation of E. coli’s metabolism of glucose/lactose. Syst Synth Biol 6:1–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Asano M, Basieva I, Khrennikov A, Ohya M, Tanaka Yu, Yamato I (2012b) Quantum-like model of diauxie in Escherichia coli: operational description of precultivation effect. J Theor Biol 314:130–137PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bartosik H, Klepp J, Schmitzer C, Sponar S, Cabello A, Rauch H, Hasegawa Y (2009) Experimental test of quantum contextuality in neutron interferometry. Phys Rev Lett 103:040403Google Scholar
  10. Basieva I, Khrennikov A, Ohya M, Yamato I (2011) Quantum-like interference effect in gene expression: glucose–lactose destructive interference. Syst Synth Biol 5:59–68PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bateson W (1894) Materials for the study of variation treated with especial regard to discontinuity in the origin of species. Macmillan, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bender J (2002) Plant epigenetics. Curr Biol 12:R412–R414PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Banerji A (2009) Existence of biological uncertainty principle implies that we can never find ’THE’ measure for biological complexity. Scholar
  14. Busemeyer JR, Wang Z, Townsend JT (2006a) Quantum dynamics of human decision making. J Math Psychol 50:220–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Busemeyer JR, Matthews M, Wang Z (2006b) A quantum information processing explanation of disjunction effects. In: Sun R, Myake N (eds) The 29th annual conference of the cognitive science society and the 5th international conference of cognitive science. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp 131–135Google Scholar
  16. Busemeyer JR, Santuy E, Lambert-Mogiliansky A (2008) Comparison of Markov and quantum models of decision making. In: Bruza P, Lawless W, van Rijsbergen K, Sofge DA, Coeke B, Clark S (eds) Quantum interaction-2. College Publications, London, pp 68–74Google Scholar
  17. Cheon T and Takahashi T (2010) Interference and inequality in quantum decision theory. Phys Lett A 375:100–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Conte E, Khrennikov A, Todarello O, Federici A, Zbilut JP (2008) A preliminary experimental verification on the possibility of Bell inequality violation in mental states. Neuroquantology 6:214–221Google Scholar
  19. Conte E, Khrennikov A, Todarello O, Federici A, Zbilut JP (2009) Mental states follow quantum mechanics during perception and cognition of ambiguous figures. Open Syst Inf Dyn 16:1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Galton F (1894) Discontinuity in evolution. Mind (n.s.) 3:362–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gillham NW (2001) Evolution by jumps: Francis Galton and William Bateson and the mechanism of evolutionary change. Genetics 159:1383–1392PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Gould SJ, Eldredge N (1993) Punctuated equilibrium comes of age. Nature 366:223–227PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Inada T, Kimata K, Aiba H (1996) Mechanism responsible for glucose–lactose diauxie in Escherichia coli challenge to the cAMP model. Genes Cells 1:293–301PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Huang S (2012) The molecular and mathematical basis of Waddington’s epigenetic landscape: a framework for post-Darwinian biology? Bioessays 34:149–157Google Scholar
  25. Jablonka E, Raz G (2009) Transgenerational epigenetic inheritance: prevalence, mechanisms, and implications for the study of heredity and evolution. Q Rev Biol 84:131–176PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Khrennikov A (2003) Quantum-like formalism for cognitive measurements. Biosystems 70:211–233PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Khrennikov A (2004) On quantum-like probabilistic structure of mental information. Open Syst Inf Dyn 11(3):267–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Khrennikov A (2006) Quantum-like brain: interference of minds. BioSystems 84:225–241PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Khrennikov A (2010) Ubiquitous quantum structure: from psychology to finance. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kohler C, Grossniklaus U (2002) Epigenetics: the flowers that come in from the cold. Curr Biol 12:129–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kohout RB, Zurek WH (2006) Quantum Darwinism: entanglement, branches, and the emergent classicality of redundantly stored quantum information. Phys Rev A 73:062310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Koonin EV, Wolf YI (2012) Evolution of microbes and viruses: a paradigm shift in evolutionary biology? Front Cell Infect Microb 2:art. number 119Google Scholar
  33. McFadden JJ, Al-Khalili JV (1999) A quantum mechanical model of adaptive mutation. Biosystems 50:203–211PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. McFadden J (2000) Quantum evolution. Harper Collins, LondonGoogle Scholar
  35. Ogryzko VV (1997) A quantum-theoretical approach to the phenomenon of directed mutations in bacteria (hypothesis). Biosystems 43:83–95PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ogryzko VV (2008) On two quantum approaches to adaptive mutations in bacteria. Scholar
  37. Ohya M (2008) Adaptive dynamics and its applications to chaos and NPC problem. QP-PQ:Quantum Prob. White Noise Anal 21:186–216Google Scholar
  38. Ohya M, Volovich I (2011) Mathematical foundations of quantum information and computation and its applications to nano- and bio-systems. Springer, HeidelbergCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rooney P, Bloch A, Rangan Ch (2012) Decoherence control and purification of two-dimensional quantum density matrices under Lindblad dissipation. Scholar
  40. Russell PJ (2010) “iGenetics”. Pearson Benjamin Cummings, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  41. Sollars V, Lu X, Xiao L, Wang X, Garfinkel MD, Ruden DM (2003) Evidence for an epigenetic mechanism by which Hsp90 acts as a capacitor for morphological evolution. Nat Genet 33:70–74PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Takahashi T, Cheon T (2012) A nonlinear neural population coding theory of quantum cognition and decision making. World J Neurosci 2:183–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Waddington CH (1942) Canalization of development and the inheritance of acquired characters. Nature 150:563–565CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Waddington CH (1953) Genetic assimilation of an acquired character. Evolution 7:118–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wanke D, Kilian J, Bloss U, Mangelsen E, Supper J, Harter K, Berendzen KW (2009) Integrating biological perspectives: a quantum leap for microarray expression analysis. Quantum bioinformatics. In: Accardi L, Freudenberg W, Ohya M (eds) quantum bio-informatics II: from quantum information to bio-informatics. WSP, Singapore, pp 327–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Zurek WH (2009) Quantum Darwinism. Nat Phys 5:181–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Masanari Asano
    • 1
  • Irina Basieva
    • 2
  • Andrei Khrennikov
    • 2
  • Masanori Ohya
    • 1
  • Yoshiharu Tanaka
    • 1
  • Ichiro Yamato
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Information SciencesTokyo University of ScienceNoda-shiJapan
  2. 2.International Center for Mathematical Modeling in Physics and Cognitive Sciences Linnaeus UniversityVäxjöSweden
  3. 3.Department of Biological Science and TechnologyTokyo University of ScienceNoda-shiJapan

Personalised recommendations