Advertisement

Theory in Biosciences

, Volume 133, Issue 2, pp 63–78 | Cite as

Robustness, canalyzing functions and systems design

  • Johannes Rauh
  • Nihat Ay
Original Paper

Abstract

We study a notion of knockout robustness of a stochastic map (Markov kernel) that describes a system of several input random variables and one output random variable. Robustness requires that the behaviour of the system does not change if one or several of the input variables are knocked out. Gibbs potentials are used to give a mechanistic description of the behaviour of the system after knockouts. Robustness imposes structural constraints on these potentials. We show that robust systems can be described in terms of suitable interaction families of Gibbs potentials, which allows us to address the problem of systems design. Robustness is also characterized by conditional independence constraints on the joint distribution of input and output. The set of all probability distributions corresponding to robust systems can be decomposed into a finite union of components, and we find parametrizations of the components.

Keywords

Robustness Knockouts Conditional independence Markov kernels 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work has been supported by the Volkswagen Foundation and the Santa Fe Institute. Nihat Ay thanks David Krakauer and Jessica Flack for many stimulating discussions on robustness. We thank the reviewers for their detailed remarks which helped us to improve our manuscript.

References

  1. Albert I, Thakar J, Li S, Zhang R, Albert R (2008) Boolean network simulations for life scientists. Source Code Biol Med 3:16PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ay N, Krakauer DC (2007) Geometric robustness theory and biological networks. Theory Biosci 125(2):93–121PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Birolini A (2010) Reliability engineering: theory and practice. 6th edn. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  4. Boldhaus G, Bertschinger N, Rauh J, Olbrich E, Klemm K (2010) Robustness of Boolean dynamics under knockouts. Phys Rev E 82(2):021916CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Drton M, Sturmfels B, Sullivant S (2009) Lectures on algebraic statistics. 1st ed., ser. Oberwolfach Seminars. Birkhäuser, Basel, vol. 39.Google Scholar
  6. Fink A (2011) The binomial ideal of the intersection axiom for conditional probabilities. J Algeb Comb 33(3):455–463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Herzog J, Hibi T, Hreinsdóttir F, Kahle T, Rauh J (2010) Binomial edge ideals and conditional independence statements. Adv Appl Math 45(3):317–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Jarrah A.S, Raposa B, Laubenbacher R (2007) Nested canalyzing, unate cascade, and polynomial functions. Physica D 233(2):167–174PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kauffman S (1993) The origins of order: self-organization and selection in evolution. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  10. Kauffman S, Peterson C, Samuelsson B, Troein C (2003) Random Boolean network models and the yeast transcriptional network. PNAS 100(25):14796–14799Google Scholar
  11. Kauffman S, Peterson C, Samuelsson B, Troein C (2004) Genetic networks with canalyzing Boolean rules are always stable. PNAS 101(49):17102–17107Google Scholar
  12. Lauritzen SL (1996) Graphical Models. In: Oxford Statistical Science Series, 1st edn. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  13. Moreira AA, Amaral LN (2005) Canalizing Kauffman networks: nonergodicity and its effect on their critical behavior. Phys Rev Lett 94:218702PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ohtani M (2011) Graphs and ideals generated by some 2-minors. Commun Algebra 39(3):905–917CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Rauh J (2013) Generalized binomial edge ideals. Adv Appl Math 50(3):409–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Schuster P, Fontana W, Stadler PF, Hofacker IL (1994) From sequences to shapes and back: a case study in RNA secondary structures. Proc Roy Soc Lond B 255:279–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Swanson I, Taylor A (2011) Minimal primes of ideals arising from conditional independence statements. J Algebra. Preprint: arXiv:1107.5604v3Google Scholar
  18. de Visser JAGM, Hermisson J, Wagner GP, Meyers LA, Bagheri-Chaichian H, Blanchard JL, Chao L, Cheverud JM, Elena SF, Fontana W, Gibson G, Hansen TF, Krakauer D, Lewontin RC, Ofria C, Rice SH, von Dassow G, Wagner A, Whitlock MC (2003) Perspective: evolution and detection of genetic robustness. Evolution 57(9):1959–1972Google Scholar
  19. Wagner G, Stadler PF (2003) Quasi-independence, homology and the unity of type: a topological theory of characters. J Theor Biol 220:505–527PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Max Planck Institute for Mathematics in the SciencesLeipzigGermany
  2. 2.Santa Fe InstituteSanta FeUSA

Personalised recommendations