Stem cells and systems models: clashing views of explanation

Abstract

This paper examines a case of failed interdisciplinary collaboration, between experimental stem cell research and theoretical systems biology. Recently, two groups of theoretical biologists have proposed dynamical systems models as a basis for understanding stem cells and their distinctive capacities. Experimental stem cell biologists, whose work focuses on manipulation of concrete cells, tissues and organisms, have largely ignored these proposals. I argue that ‘failure to communicate’ in this case is rooted in divergent views of explanation: the theoretically-inclined modelers are committed to a version of the covering-law view, while experimental stem cell biologists aim at mechanistic explanations. I propose a way to reconcile these two explanatory approaches to cell development, and discuss the significance of this result for interdisciplinary collaboration in systems biology and beyond.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Notes

  1. 1.

    See Fagan (2013a, especially Chaps. 3 and 6–7) for more on stem cell experiments.

  2. 2.

    In addition to the works cited above, see: Furusawa and Kaneko (1998, 2001, 2009), Huang (2009a, b, 2011a), Huang et al. (2007, 2009), Kaneko (2011), Kaneko and Yomo (1999), Kaneko et al. (2008), Kauffman (1969, 1971, 1973, 1993), Nagajima and Kaneko (2008) ,Wang et al. (2010), Zhou and Huang (2010).

  3. 3.

    Citations to Furusawa and Kaneko (2012) as of 7/1/2014: Web of Science (23) and GoogleScholar (38). Programs of the International Society for Stem Cell Research annual meeting assessed: 2011–2014. Meetings on the Systems Biology of Stem Cells (UC Irvine) show a sharp decline in participation from experimental stem cell biologists between 2010 and 2011.

  4. 4.

    These critical assessments are examined in Sect. 5.

  5. 5.

    This is not of course the only obstacle to integrating experimental and modeling approaches. Different views about data and evidence, as well as long-term scientific aims, are likely to play a role as well. However, the clash of explanatory standards is the most serious at present, inhibiting even early stages of collaboration between stem cell experimentalists and DST modelers. Thanks to Miles MacLeod for raising this point on an earlier draft.

  6. 6.

    See Sects. 2 and 5.

  7. 7.

    A brief discussion of this case appears in Green et al. (2015). However, the conclusions of that paper concern another field—evolutionary systems biology; the stem cell case played the role of a negative example. This paper considers the example more in depth, and proposes a different positive solution than that of Green et al.

  8. 8.

    By a ‘view of explanation’ I mean the methodological commitments and assumptions held by a scientific community, which approximate philosophical accounts of scientific explanation.

  9. 9.

    See Fagan (2012a, 2013a, b) for more detailed discussion.

  10. 10.

    State space is also referred to as phase space; the DST modelers discussed here use these terms interchangeably.

  11. 11.

    Linear stability analysis involves using the Taylor expansion and combining equations representing changes for different variables into the product of a vector and matrix (see Newman 2010, pp. 679–686; Strogatz 2000, pp. 24–26, 150–155).

  12. 12.

    Other special cases involve complex values of matrix vectors, such that the steady-state is not a fixed point, but an oscillation or spiral. A scientifically significant example is stable oscillation or limit cycle, such as that of Lotka–Volterra predator–prey equations.

  13. 13.

    Interestingly, Waddington’s own representation of changing parameters is not cited by recent treatments.

  14. 14.

    Note that these DST models are not the only mathematical approach to stem cells (Sect. 1).

  15. 15.

    Though DST theorists term them ‘genes,’ nodes in GRNs do not represent DNA sequences (Fagan 2013a, Chap. 9). Kaneko and Yomo (1999) explicitly state that nodes of “autocatalytic reaction networks” may be interpreted as genes or proteins (p. 247).

  16. 16.

    Kauffman’s (1993) framework is another version of this idea: that the basic principles of living things are selection and self-organization, the latter taking priority.

  17. 17.

    In a further extension, robustness and plasticity are taken to be “essential features of all biological systems” (Kaneko 2011, pp. 403–404).

  18. 18.

    ODEs are the most commonly used formal framework for cellular systems models, both in systems biology generally, and for stem cell phenomena in particular. Alternative frameworks include directed graphs, Bayesian and Boolean networks (see Fagan 2013a, Chap. 9 for more detail).

  19. 19.

    These GRNs share a few key features: positive feedback loops, oscillating behavior, and an intermediate number of connecting paths between nodes (3–6, for small networks).

  20. 20.

    The smaller basins reflect a smaller number of nodes with values of the state variable \({>}\)0; fewer molecular species are present in networks at these states.

  21. 21.

    The “quasi-” qualifier is included to indicate that ‘elevation’ is not a true potential energy calculated by integrating the system of equations. Rather, relative ‘height’ and ‘depth’ of hills and valleys on the global landscape are computed as the probability of finding a cell at a given point in state space (Huang 2009a, p. 555).

  22. 22.

    E.g., Kaneko (2011, p. 408), see also Huang (2009b, p. 3859), Furusawa and Kaneko (2012, p. 215).

  23. 23.

    E.g., DST models can help us “understand the characteristics that distinguish stem cells from other cell types and allow them to conduct stable proliferation [aka self-renewal] and differentiation” (Furusawa and Kaneko 2012, p. 215).

  24. 24.

    Pluripotency is the capacity to develop into all cell types that make up an adult body (see Sect. 2).

  25. 25.

    For more on abstraction in biological explanations, see Levy and Bechtel (2013) on connectionist networks in neuroscience, Green et al. (2015) on principled design explanations in developmental biology.

  26. 26.

    For example: “[experimental data] are consistent with this picture. In other words, development is the distribution of cells into a set of (“low energy”) attractors and their balanced occupation by cell populations” (Huang et al. 2009, p. 873; italics mine).

  27. 27.

    Had the DST models predicted reprogramming in advance of Yamanaka’s experiments, this would have been a very surprising result—and might well have caught experimenters’ attention.

  28. 28.

    Though it is not clear why the model predicts that reprogramming requires “few genes” rather than many.

  29. 29.

    This is why DST models’ support of counterfactual reasoning regarding elements of the state space does not obviate this concern: the terms in which such counterfactuals can be articulated do not make contact with the molecular details that experimentalists seek to explain. Thanks to an anonymous reviewer for Synthese for raising this point.

  30. 30.

    In the model, every point in the state space represents a gene expression pattern that “approximately represents” a cell phenotype. Movement on the landscape represents change in the gene expression profile of a GRN, “and, hence, of the cell phenotype” (Huang 2009b, p. 3859; italics mine). Relatedly, interactions are “hard-wired” such that there is only one GRN per genome (Huang 2009b, p. 550).

  31. 31.

    Elsewhere, Kauffman (1993) is more circumspect, treating the thesis that cell types are attractors as a reasonable hypothesis with some experimental support (p. 469).

  32. 32.

    Thanks to an anonymous reviewer for Synthese for pushing me to clarify this point.

  33. 33.

    This is not to say that all DST models of biological phenomena are committed to the covering law view. The analysis of this section, like other critical sections of this paper, is focused on the narrowly-defined community of theoretical DST modelers proposing an alternative explanation of stem cell capacities.

  34. 34.

    Kaneko et al. (2008, p. 501) suggest that V may represent the extent of methylation on chromosomal DNA; however, it is difficult to see how this feature could be attributed to entire cell states without loss of information needed to derive general features of cell development.

  35. 35.

    The two features are: few inputs per node, and canalyzing Boolean functions (see Kauffman 1993 for details).

  36. 36.

    But see Fagan (2012b), for a dissenting view.

  37. 37.

    Thanks to an anonymous reviewer for Synthese for raising this point.

  38. 38.

    Kauffman’s (1993) methodology is a response to a biological research community pre-dating stem cell biology today. His ‘order for free’ account is designed as an alternative to detailed, part-by-part reductionistic analysis based on experimental methods. The latter cannot satisfy Kauffman’s explanatory aims, which are not just to analyze GRN structure and behavior, but explain why they exhibit the structure and behavior they do, and how these features might evolve. Although experimental details about specific cascades and network reactions are useful, these cannot reveal the overall architecture of GRN systems, to “deduce these statistical features [of GRNs] from some deeper theory,” not “merely list them” (p. 25).

  39. 39.

    Machamer et al.’s (2000) definition of ‘mechanism’ does suggest a linear causal view of mechanisms (see above). However, more recent accounts of mechanisms in biology are more consonant with the ‘network’ view (e.g., Bechtel 2011).

  40. 40.

    The reverse accommodation, prioritizing the covering law view while relating mechanistic explanation to it, is illustrated by “constraint-based explanations” that articulate principles used to narrow down the ranges of possible mechanisms underlying phenomena of interest (Green et al. 2015).

  41. 41.

    For more detail, and a specific example, see Fagan (2012a, 2013a).

  42. 42.

    Because the same molecular components may interact differently in different contexts, we cannot extrapolate rate laws from one cellular context to another. This makes cellular systems models highly localized. The same molecular components operate differently in developing than in mature cells, across species, and across mature cell types. So molecular networks operating in developing cells require data from the cells in question, to formulate the equations.

  43. 43.

    Zednik (2008, 2011) argues, similarly, that dynamical models and methods can contribute to mechanistic as well as covering-law explanations.

  44. 44.

    See Green et al. (2015) for another example: evolutionary systems biology.

  45. 45.

    Paralleling foundationalist theories of epistemic justification, explanatory power is localized to the terminus of the explanatory chain.

  46. 46.

    See also Zednik (2008, note 1).

References

  1. Bechtel, W. (2011). Mechanism and biological explanation. Philosophy of Science, 78, 533–557.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bechtel, W., & Abrahamson, A. (2005). Explanation: A mechanist alternative. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 36, 421–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Boogerd, F., Bruggeman, F., Hofmeyr, J.-H., & Westerhoff, H. (Eds.). (2007). Systems biology: Philosophical foundations. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Braillard, P.-A., & Malaterre, C. (Eds.). (forthcoming). Explanation in biology: An enquiry into the diversity of explanatory patterns in the life sciences. Dordrecht: Springer.

  5. Brigandt, I. (2013). Systems biology and the integration of mechanistic explanation and mathematical explanation. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 44, 477–492.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Calvert, J., & Fujimura, J. H. (2011). Calculating life? Duelling discourses in interdisciplinary systems biology. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 42, 155–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Craver, C. (2007). Explaining the brain: Mechanisms and the mosaic unity of neuroscience. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  8. Darden, L. (2006). Reasoning in biological discoveries: Essays on mechanisms, interfield relations, and anomaly resolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  9. Fagan, M. (2012a). Waddington redux: Models and explanation in stem cell and systems biology. Biology and Philosophy, 27, 179–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Fagan, M. (2012b). The joint account of mechanistic explanation. Philosophy of Science, 79, 448–472.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Fagan, M. (2013a). Philosophy of stem cell biology. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  12. Fagan, M. (2013b). Philosophy of stem cell biology: An introduction. Philosophy Compass, 8, 1147–1158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Furusawa, C., & Kaneko, K. (1998). Emergence of rules in cell society: Differentiation, hierarchy, and stability. Bulletin of Mathematical Biology, 60, 659–687.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Furusawa, C., & Kaneko, K. (2001). Theory of robustness of irreversible differentiation in a stem cell system: Chaos hypothesis. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 209, 395–416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Furusawa, C., & Kaneko, K. (2009). Chaotic expression dynamics implies pluripotency: When theory and experiment meet. Biology Direct, 4, 17. doi:10.1186/1745-6150-4-17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Furusawa, C., & Kaneko, K. (2012). A dynamical-systems view of stem cell biology. Science, 338, 215–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Glennan, S. (1996). Mechanisms and the nature of causation. Erkenntnis, 44, 49–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Glennan, S. (2002). Rethinking mechanistic explanation. Philosophy of Science, 69, S342–S353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Green, S. (Ed.). (in press). Systems biology: 5 Questions. Copenhagen: Automatic Press/VIP.

  20. Green, S., Bechtel, W., & Levy, A. (2015). Design sans adaptation. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 5, 15–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Green, S., Fagan, M., & Jaeger, J. (2015). Explanatory integration challenges in evolutionary systems biology. Biological Theory, 9, 18–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Gunawardena, J. (2010). Models in systems biology: The parameter problem and the meanings of robustness. In H. M. Lodhi & S. H. Muggleton (Eds.), Elements of computational systems biology (pp. 21–47). Hoboken: Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Hackett, J. A., & Surani, M. A. (2014). Regulatory principles of pluripotency: From the ground state up. Cell Stem Cell, 15, 416–430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Hempel, C. G., & Oppenheim, P. (1948). Studies in the logic of explanation. Philosophy of Science, 15, 135–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Huang, S. (2009a). Reprogramming cell fates: Reconciling rarity with robustness. Bioessays, 31, 546–560.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Huang, S. (2009b). Non-genetic heterogeneity of cells in development: More than just noise. Development, 136, 3853–3862.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Huang, S. (2011a). Understanding gene circuits at cell-fate branch points for rational cell reprogramming. Trends in Genetics, 27, 55–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Huang, S. (2011b). Systems biology of stem cells: Three useful perspectives to help overcome the paradigm of linear pathways. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, Series B, 366, 2247–2259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Huang, S., Ernberg, I., & Kauffman, S. (2009). Cancer attractors: A systems view of tumors from a gene network dynamics and developmental perspective. Seminars in Developmental Biology, 20, 869–876.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Huang, S., Guo, Y. P., May, G., & Enver, T. (2007). Bifurcation dynamics of cell fate decision in bipotent progenitor cells. Developmental Biology, 305, 695–713.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Jaeger, J., & Crombach, A. (2012). Life’s attractors: Understanding developmental systems through reverse engineering and in silico evolution. In O. Soyer (Ed.), Evolutionary systems biology (pp. 93–119). London: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  32. Jaeger, J., Irons, D., & Monk, N. (2012). The inheritance of process: A dynamical systems approach. Journal of Experimental Zoology Series B (Molecular and Developmental Evolution), 318B, 591–612.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Jaeger, J., & Sharpe, J. (2014). On the concept of mechanism in development. In A. Minelli & T. Pradeu (Eds.), Towards a theory of development (pp. 56–78). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  34. Kaneko, K. (2011). Characterization of stem cells and cancer cells on the basis of gene expression profile stability, plasticity, and robustness. BioEssays, 33, 403–413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Kaneko, K., Sato, K., Michiue, T., Okabayashi, K., Ohnuma, K., Danno, H., et al. (2008). Developmental potential for morphogenesis in vivo and in vitro. Journal of Experimental Zoology (Molecular and Developmental Evolution), 310B, 492–503.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Kaneko, K., & Yomo, T. (1999). Isologous diversification for robust development of cell society. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 99, 243–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Kaplan, D., & Craver, C. (2011). The explanatory force of dynamical and mathematical models in neuroscience: A mechanistic perspective. Philosophy of Science, 78, 601–627.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Kauffman, S. (1969). Metabolic stability and epigenetics in randomly constructed genetic nets. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 22, 437–467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Kauffman, S. (1971). Differentiation of malignant to benign cells. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 31, 429–451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Kauffman, S. (1973). Control circuits for determination and transdetermination. Science, 181, 310–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Kauffman, S. (1993). The origins of order: Self-organization and selection in evolution. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Kitano, H. (2002). Looking beyond the details: A rise in system-oriented approaches in genetics and molecular biology. Current Genetics, 41, 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Kitcher, P. (1981). Explanatory unification. Philosophy of Science, 48, 507–531.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Klipp, E., Liebermeister, W., Wierling, C., Kowald, A., Lehrach, H., & Herwig, R. (2009). Systems biology: A textbook. Weinheim: Wiley-VCH.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Knuuttila, T., & Loettgers, A. (2013). Basic science through engineering? Synthetic modeling and the idea of biology-inspired engineering. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 44, 158–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Laplane, L. (forthcoming). Cellule souche cancéreuses: Ontologies et therapies. Ph.D. dissertation, Université Paris Ouest Nanterre La Défense and Sorbonne Université. To be published (in translation) by Harvard University Press.

  47. Levy, A., & Bechtel, W. (2013). Abstraction and the organization of mechanisms. Philosophy of Science, 80, 241–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Machamer, P., Darden, L., & Craver, C. (2000). Thinking about mechanisms. Philosophy of Science, 67, 1–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. MacLeod, M., & Nersessian, N. J. (2013a). Coupling simulation and experiment: The bimodal strategy in integrative systems biology. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 44, 572–584.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. MacLeod, M., & Nersessian, N. J. (2013b). Building simulations from the ground up: Modeling and theory in systems biology. Philosophy of Science, 80, 533–556.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. MacLeod, M., & Nersessian, N. J. (2014). Strategies for coordinating experimentation and modeling in integrative systems biology. Journal of Experimental Zoology (Molecular and Developmental Evolution), 322B, 230–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Melton, D. A., & Cowan, C. (2009). Stemness: Definitions, criteria, and standards. In R. Lanza et al. (Eds.). Essentials of stem biology (2nd ed., pp. xxii–xxix). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

  53. Nagajima, A., & Kaneko, K. (2008). Regulative differentiation as bifurcation of interacting cell population. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 253, 779–787.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Newman, M. (2010). Networks: An introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  55. Nobel Assembly. (October 2012). Karolinska Institute. Press release, 8.

  56. O’Malley, M., & Soyer, O. (2012). The roles of integration in molecular systems biology. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 43, 58–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Ramalho-Santos, M., & Willenbring, H. (2007). On the origin of the term ‘stem cell’. Cell Stem Cell, 1, 35–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Salmon, W. (1989). Four decades of scientific explanation. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Strevens, M. (2008). Depth. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Strogatz, S. H. (2000). Nonlinear dynamics and chaos: With applications to physics, biology, chemistry and engineering. New York: Perseus Books.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Takahashi, K., & Yamanaka, S. (2006). Induction of pluripotent stem cells from mouse embryonic and adult fibroblast cultures by defined factors. Cell, 126, 663–676.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Thomson, J., Itskovitz-Eldor, J., Shapiro, S., Waknitz, M., Swiergel, J., Marshall, V., et al. (1998). Embryonic stem cell lines derived from human blastocysts. Science, 282, 1145–1147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Vierbuchen, T., & Wernig, M. (2011). Direct lineage conversions: Unnatural but useful? Nature Biotechnology, 29, 892–907.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Waddington, C. H. (1957). The strategy of the genes. London: Taylor & Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Wang, J., Xu, L., Wang, E., & Huang, S. (2010). The potential landscape of genetic circuits imposes the arrow of time in stem cell differentiation. Biophysical Journal, 99, 29–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Woodward, J. (2003). Making things happen: A theory of causal explanation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Zednik, C. (2008). Dynamical models and mechanistic explanations. In B. C. Love, K. McRae, & V. M. Sloutsky (Eds.), Proceedings of the 30th annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 1454–1459). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Zednik, C. (2011). The nature of dynamical explanation. Philosophy of Science, 78, 238–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Zhou, J. X., & Huang, S. (2010). Understanding gene circuits at cell-fates branch points for rational cell reprogramming. Trends in Genetics, 27, 55–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Zipori, D. (2004). The nature of stem cells. Nature Reviews Genetics, 5, 873–878.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This paper has benefited from comments by William Bechtel, Sara Green, Matt Haber, Oleg Igoshin, Johannes Jaeger, Lucie Laplane, Miles MacLeod, Elijah Millgram, Miriam Thalos, and two anonymous reviewers for Synthese. Funding was provided by a Faculty Innovation Fellowship from the Rice University Division of Humanities, and a Scholar’s Award from the National Science Foundation (Award No. 1354515).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Melinda Bonnie Fagan.

Additional information

Earlier versions of this paper were presented at the 2013 ISHPSSB Biennial meeting (Montpellier, France), the 29th Altenberg Workshop in Theoretical Biology (Konrad Lorenz Institute, September 2013), and discussed among participants in Jim Bogen and Peter Machamer’s seminar on ‘Mechanisms, Explanation, and Reduction’ at University of Pittsburgh (Fall 2013).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fagan, M.B. Stem cells and systems models: clashing views of explanation. Synthese 193, 873–907 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-015-0776-3

Download citation

Keywords

  • Explanation
  • Mechanisms
  • Covering law
  • Stem cells
  • Systems biology
  • Interdisciplinarity