Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Explanatory Integration Challenges in Evolutionary Systems Biology

Biological Theory volume 10, pages 18–35 (2015)Cite this article

The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing.

—Attributed to Archilochus in Isaiah Berlin (1953).

Abstract

Evolutionary systems biology (ESB) aims to integrate methods from systems biology and evolutionary biology to go beyond the current limitations in both fields. This article clarifies some conceptual difficulties of this integration project, and shows how they can be overcome. The main challenge we consider involves the integration of evolutionary biology with developmental dynamics, illustrated with two examples. First, we examine historical tensions between efforts to define general evolutionary principles and articulation of detailed mechanistic explanations of specific traits. Next, these tensions are further clarified by considering a recent case from another field focused on developmental dynamics: stem cell biology. In the stem cell case, incompatible explanatory aims block integration. Experimental approaches aim at mechanistic explanation while dynamical system models offer explanation in terms of general principles. We then discuss an ESB case in which integration succeeds: search for general attractors using a dynamical systems framework synergizes with the experimental search for detailed mechanisms. Contrasts between the positive and negative cases suggest general lessons for achieving an integrated understanding of developmental and evolutionary dynamics. The key integrative move is to acknowledge two complementary aims, both relevant to explanation: identifying the space of possible dynamic states and trajectories, and mechanistic understanding of causal interactions underlying a specific phenomenon of interest. These two aims can support one another in a joint project characterizing dynamic aspects of evolving lineages. This more inclusive project can lead to insights that cannot be reached by either approach in isolation.

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

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Notes

  1. Note that the search for design principles does not imply a designer or necessarily rely on a comparison between intentional design and natural selection.

  2. Other terms used to express the same idea are “generic principles” (Newman 1993, 1994; Hogeweg 2012) and “laws of evolution” (Koonin and Wolf 2010; Koonin 2011).

  3. We do not dispute the possibility that tensions between fields can be productive in research in shaping specialized fields. However, when relevant aspects are not integrated due to such disagreements, it may hinder progress in science.

  4. The terms, due to Smith (1992), will be clarified in the following section. The notions of neo-rationalism and neo-Darwinism are perforce somewhat ambiguous and refer to two streams of biological research drawing on common organizing concepts rather than well-defined research programs. Smith’s (1992) notion of neo-rationalism is slightly misleading since it gives the impression that this stream involves a purely philosophical program. With these caveats in mind, we shall however continue with these terms for the sake of simplicity.

  5. See Amundson (2001) for a historical review of the 18th- and 19th-century debates on the notions of heredity, homology, and constraints.

  6. Historically, these issues have been related. As we shall see in the following, neo-rationalists argued against the focus on selection as well as on genetic details in neo-Darwinian approaches. But the issue of adaptationism is orthogonal to the question of the relevant level of explanation. A very powerful criticism of the focus on adaptive function has come from evolutionary geneticists who have emphasized how neutral evolution should also be considered a driving force of evolution (e.g., Kimura 1985; Lynch 2007a, b).

  7. An exception is of course stabilizing selection, but the basic point is the same in this case—the interest is in selection of functionally beneficial traits rather than non-selective processes that generate variation or stabilize patterns.

  8. Kauffman explicitly stated that the spontaneous sources of order at the same time enable and limit the efficacy of natural selection. For a philosophical perspective on the relation between principles of self-organization and adaptation, see Burian and Richardson (1990); and Richardson (2001).

  9. It should be noted that neo-Darwinian explanations can be general too. Similar disagreements regarding general and detailed explanations also exist within this approach, e.g., between proponents of equilibrium studies and researchers arguing for the need for detailed phylogenies and population histories (Amundson 2001). Similarly, not all approaches to development focus on general principles as structuralists do. However, we here concentrate on the discrepancies between neo-Darwinism and neo-rationalism.

  10. Goodwin has become known for rather provocative statements on the unimportance of genes. But, in particular in his later work, Goodwin argued that genes are indeed important to understand evolution and development. What he stressed was, however, that this role can only be understood against the background of the organization of developmental systems (Jaeger and Monk 2013).

  11. Whereas some, including Mayr himself, saw development as “proximate” biology, one could say that development in this view becomes even more “ultimate” than natural selection because selection is based on variation generated by these processes (Amundson 2001).

  12. See, e.g., Melton and Cowan (2009, p. xxiv), and Ramelho-Santos and Willenbring (2007, p. 35). Stem cells vary in their differentiation potential, being designated as pluri-, multi-, oligo-, or unipotent depending on the range of cell types they can produce. These distinctions do not affect the arguments here. For simplicity, we refer to stem cells as “multipotent” in what follows.

  13. Though DS theorists often refer to the elements of GRNs as “genes,” they do not represent inert DNA sequences alone, but rather focus on the gene’s mRNA and/or protein products.

  14. The full quotation: “As long as such gene expression dynamics allows for oscillation between on and off states of gene expression, this course of differentiation appears universally” (Kaneko 2011, p. 408).

  15. Some philosophers of biology defend accounts of mechanisms that do require laws, generalizations, or abstraction (e.g., Glennan 1996). However, the prevailing view of mechanistic explanation in biology is that laws or general principles are not required.

  16. There is considerable debate within the philosophy of biology as to whether this norm is the sole guide to constructing mechanistic explanations. However, the basic point that mechanistic explanations aim to capture (some) features of real biological systems is widely accepted.

  17. This may be too strong; DS models do predict that gene manipulations in reprogramming should produce "oscillation" in expression levels. But the models offer no guidance as to which genes those are, which undercuts the appeal from an experimental point of view.

  18. In this context, parameter space refers to the space of the regulatory network, sometimes called “genotype space,” although parameters are not only determined by DNA sequences but also by environmental influences. Just as in the case of state space, parameter spaces can be subdivided into discrete regions. In this context, boundaries refer to bifurcation events.

  19. Hugo de Vries famously said that “natural selection may explain the survival of the fittest, but it cannot explain the arrival of the fittest” (De Vries 1940, pp. 825–236). That is, natural selection cannot explain why some forms are produced in the first place, but only why some traits are preserved in a population.

References

  • Alberch P (1991) From genes to phenotype: dynamical systems and evolvability. Genetica 84:5–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alon U (2007) An introduction to systems biology: design principles of biological circuits. Chapman and Hall, Boca Raton

    Google Scholar 

  • Amundson R (1994) Two concepts of constraint: adaptationism and the challenge from developmental biology. Philos Sci 61:556–578

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amundson R (2001) Adaptation and development: on the lack of common ground. In: Orzack SH, Sober E (eds) Adaptationism and optimality. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 303–334

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ashyraliyev M, Fomekong-Nanfack Y, Kaandorp JA et al (2009) Systems biology: parameter estimation for biochemical models. FEBS J 276:886–902

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Banga JR (2008) Optimization in computational systems biology. BMC Syst Biol 2:47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beatty J (1995) The evolutionary contingency thesis. In: Wolters G, Bechtel W, Richardson RC (1993) Discovering complexity: decomposition and localization as strategies in scientific research. Princeton University Press, Princeton

  • Bechtel W, Richardson R (1993) Discovering complexity: decomposition and localization as strategies in scientific research. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey

  • Berlin I (1953) The hedgehog and the fox: an essay on Tolstoy’s view on history. Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Burian RM, Richardson RC (1990) Form and order in evolutionary biology: Stuart Kauffman’s transformation of theoretical biology. PSA 2:267–287

    Google Scholar 

  • Cain CJ, Conte DA, García-Ojeda ME et al (2008) What systems biology is (not, yet). Science 320:1013–1014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll RL (2000) Towards a new evolutionary synthesis. Trends Ecol Evol 15:27–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collins JP, Gilbert S, Laubichler MD, Müller GB (2007) Modeling in EvoDevo: how to integrate development, evolution, and ecology. In: Laubichler MD, Müller GB (eds) Modeling biology: structures, behaviors, evolution. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 355–378

  • Craver C (2007) Explaining the brain: mechanisms and the mosaic unity of neuroscience. Clarendon, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Csete M, Doyle J (2002) Reverse engineering biological complexity. Science 295:1664–1669

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Darwin C (1859) On the origin of species by means of natural selection. John Murray, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawkins R (1976) The selfish gene. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • De Vries H (1940) Species and varieties: their origin by mutation. Open Court, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Delbrück M (1949) Discussion. In Unités biologiques douées de continuité génétique. Editions du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Paris

  • Depew DJ, Weber BH (1995) Darwinism evolving: systems dynamics and the genealogy of natural selection. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

  • Enver T, Pera M, Peterson C, Andrews PW (2009) Stem cell states, fates, and the rules of attraction. Cell Stem Cell 4:387–397

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Espinosa-Soto C, Martin OC, Wagner A (2011) Phenotypic plasticity can facilitate adaptive evolution in gene regulatory circuits. BMC Evol Biol 11:5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fagan MB (2012) Waddington redux: models and explanation in stem cell and systems biology. Biol Philos 27:179–213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Felix M-A (2012) Evolution in developmental phenotype space. Curr Opin Genet Dev 22:593–599

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • François P (2012) Evolution in silico: from network structure to bifurcation theory. In: Soyer S (ed) Evolutionary systems biology. Springer, New York, pp 157–182

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin B (1982) Development and evolution. J Theor Biol 97:43–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin B (1994) How the leopard changed its spots: the evolution of complexity. Phoenix, London

  • Goodwin B (2009) Beyond the Darwinian paradigm: understanding biological forms. In: Ruse M, Travis J (eds) Evolution: the first four billion years. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 299–312

  • Goodwin B, Kauffman S, Murray JD (1993) Is morphogenesis an intrinsically robust process? J Theor Biol 163:135–144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gould SJ (1989) Wonderful life. Norton, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffiths PE (1996) The historical turn in the study of adaptation. Brit J Phil Sci 47:511–532

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haag ES (2007) Compensatory vs. pseudocompensatory evolution in molecular and developmental interactions. Genetica 129:45–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hempel CG, Oppenheim P (1948) Studies in the logic of explanation. Philos Sci 15:135–175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hochedlinger K, Plath K (2009) Epigenetic reprogramming and induced pluripotency. Development 136:509–523

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hogeweg P (2012) Toward a theory of multilevel evolution: long-term information integration shapes the mutational landscape and enhances evolvability. In: Soyer O (ed) Evolutionary systems biology. Springer, London, pp 195–223

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Huang S (2009a) Non-genetic heterogeneity of cells in development: more than just noise. Development 136:3853–3862

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang S (2009b) Reprogramming cell fates: reconciling rarity with robustness. BioEssays 31:546–560

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang S (2011a) Systems biology of stem cells: three useful perspectives to help overcome the paradigm of linear pathways. Phil Trans R Soc B 366:2247–2259

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang S (2011b) The molecular and mathematical basis of Waddington’s epigenetic landscape: a framework for post-Darwinian biology? BioEssays 34:149–157

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang S, Ernberg I, Kauffman S (2009) Cancer attractors: a systems view of tumors from a gene network dynamics and developmental perspective. Semin Cell Dev Biol 20:869–876

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaeger J (2011) The gap gene network. Cell Mol Life Sci 68:243–274

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Jaeger J, Monk N (2010) Reverse engineering of gene regulatory networks. In: Lawrence ND, Girolami M, Rattray M et al (eds) Learning and inference in computational systems biology. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 9–34

  • Jaeger J, Monk N (2013) Keeping the gene it its place. In: Lambert D, Chetland C, Millar C (eds) The intuitive way of knowing: a tribute to Brian Goodwin. Floris Books, Glasgow, pp 153–189

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaeger J, Monk N (2014) Bioattractors: dynamical systems theory and the evolution of regulatory processes. J Physiol 592:2267

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Jaeger J, Surkova S, Blagov M et al (2004a) Dynamic control of positional information in the early Drosophila embryo. Nature 430:368–371

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaeger J, Blagov M, Kosman D et al (2004b) Dynamical analysis of regulatory interactions in the gap gene system of Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics 167:1721–1737

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaeger J, Irons D, Monk N (2012) The inheritance of process: a dynamical systems approach. J Exp Zool B 318:591–612

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Kaplan DM, Craver CF (2011) The explanatory force of dynamical and mathematical models in neuroscience: a mechanistic perspective. Philos Sci 78:601–627

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kauffman S (1969) Metabolic stability and epigenesis in randomly constructed genetic nets. J Theor Biol 22:437–467

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kauffman S (1970) Articulation of parts explanation in biology and the rational search for them. Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, PSA, pp 257–272

  • Kauffman S (1993) Origins of order in evolution: self-organisation and selection. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Kauffman S (1995) At home in the universe: the search for laws of self-organization and complexity. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Kimura M (1985) The neutral theory of molecular evolution. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Knight CG, Pinney JW (2009) Making the right connections: biological networks in the light of evolution. BioEssays 10:1080–1090

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koonin EV (2011) Are there laws of genome evolution? PLoS Comput Biol 7:e1002173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koonin EV, Wolf YI (2010) Constraints and plasticity in genome and molecular-phenome evolution. Nat Rev Genet 11:487–498

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krakauer D, Collins JP, Erwin D et al (2011) The challenges and scope of theoretical biology. J Theor Biol 276:269–276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lu R, Markowetz F, Unwin RD et al (2009) Systems-level dynamic analyses of fate change in murine embryonic stem cells. Nature 462:358–362

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lynch M (2007a) The evolution of genetic networks by non-adaptive processes. Nat Rev Genet 8:803–813

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lynch M (2007b) The frailty of adaptive hypotheses for the origins of organismal complexity. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104:8597–8604

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacArthur BD, Ma’ayan A, Lemischka IR (2009) Systems biology of stem cell fate and cellular reprogramming. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 10:672–681

    Google Scholar 

  • Machamer P, Darden L, Craver C (2000) Thinking about mechanisms. Philos Sci 67:1–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacLeod M, Nersessian N (2013) Coupling simulation and experiment: the bimodal strategy in integrative systems biology. Stud Hist Phil Biol Biomed Sci 44:572–584

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manu SS, Spirov AV, Gursky VV et al (2009a) Canalization of gene expression in the Drosophila blastoderm by gap gene cross regulation. PLoS Biol 7:e1000049

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manu SS, Spirov AV, Gursky VV et al (2009b) Canalization of gene expression and domain shifts in the Drosophila blastoderm by dynamical attractors. PLoS Comput Biol 5:e1000303

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayr E (1983) How to carry out the adaptationist program? Am Nat 121:324–334

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayr E (2005) What makes biology unique? Considerations on the autonomy of a scientific discipline. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Melton D, Cowan C (2009) Stemness: definitions, criteria, and standards. In: Lanza R, Gearhart J, Hogan B et al (eds) Essentials of stem cell biology. Academic Press, San Diego, pp xxii–xxix

    Google Scholar 

  • Mjolsness E, Sharp DH, Reinitz J (1991) A connectionist model of development. J Theor Biol 152:429–453

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newman SA (1993) Is segmentation generic? BioEssays 15:277–283

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newman SA (1994) Generic physical mechanisms of tissue morphogenesis: a common basis for development and evolution. J Evol Biol 7:467–488

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Malley M (2012) Evolutionary systems biology: historical and philosophical perspectives on an emerging synthesis. In: Soyer O (ed) Evolutionary systems biology. Springer, London, pp 1–28

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Oster G, Alberch P (1982) Evolution and bifurcation of developmental programs. Evolution 36:444–459

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Papp B, Notebaart RA, Pál C (2011) Systems-biology approaches for predicting genomic evolution. Nat Rev Genet 12:591–602

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pigliucci M (2009) An extended synthesis for evolutionary biology. Ann NY Acad Sci 1168:218–228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pigliucci M (2010) Genotype-phenotype mapping and the end of the “genes as blueprint” metaphor. Phil Trans R Soc Lond B 365:557–566

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pigliucci M, Müller GB (eds) (2010) Evolution: the extended synthesis. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

  • Ramalho-Santos M, Willenbring H (2007) On the origin of the term “stem cell”. Cell Stem Cell 1:35–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reinitz J, Sharp DH (1995) Mechanism of eve stripe formation. Mech Dev 49:133–158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richardson R (2001) Complexity, self-organization and selection. Biol Philos 16:653–682

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riedl R (1978) Order in living organisms: a systems analysis of evolution. Wiley, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  • Salazar-Ciudad I (2006) On the origins of morphological disparity and its diverse developmental bases. BioEssays 28:1112–1122

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith KC (1992) Neo-rationalism versus neo-Darwinism: integrating development and evolution. Biol Philos 7:431–451

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soldner F, Jaenisch R (2012) iPSC disease modeling. Science 338:1155–1156

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steinacher A, Soyer O (2012) Evolutionary principles underlying structure and response dynamics of cellular networks. In: Soyer O (ed) Evolutionary systems biology. Springer, London, pp 225–247

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Strogatz SH (2000) Nonlinear dynamics and chaos. With applications to physics, biology, chemistry and engineering. Perseus Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Tachibana M, Amato P, Sparman M et al (2013) Human embryonic stem cells derived by somatic cell nuclear transfer. Cell 153:1–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thom R (1976) Structural stability and morphogenesis. Benjamin, Reading

    Google Scholar 

  • True J, Haag ES (2001) Developmental system drift and flexibility in evolutionary trajectories. Evol Dev 3:109–119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van den Berg, Debbie LC, Snoek T et al (2010) An Oct4-centered protein interaction network in embryonic stem cells. Cell Stem Cell 6:369–381

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waddington CH (1940) Organisers and genes. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Waddington CH (1957) The strategy of the genes. Taylor and Francis, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner A (2008) Gene duplications, robustness and evolutionary innovations. BioEssays 30:367–373

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner A (2011a) Genotype networks shed light on evolutionary constraints. Trends Ecol Evol 26:577–584

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner A (2011b) The origins of evolutionary innovations: a theory of transformative change in living systems. Oxford University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner A (2011c) The molecular origins of evolutionary innovations. Trends Genet 27:397–410

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webster G, Goodwin B (1996) Form and transformation: generative and relational principles in biology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Yamanaka S (2009) Elite and stochastic models for induced pluripotent stem cell generation. Nature 460:49–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zenobi R (2013) Single-cell metabolomics: analytical and biological perspectives. Science 342:124325

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhou JX, Huang S (2011) Understanding gene circuits at cell-fates branch points for rational cell reprogramming. Trends Genet 27:55–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhou Q, Melton DA (2008) Extreme makeover: converting one cell into another. Cell Stem Cell 3:382–388

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Orkun Soyer, Maureen O’Malley, and Sabina Leonelli for organizing the workshop on ESB and the KLI for hosting this event. We are grateful to the participants of the workshop for many fruitful discussions, and to Gerd Müller and Werner Callebaut for taking the initiative to have a thematic section based on important themes discussed at the workshop. Johannes Jaeger would like to thank Karl Wotton for the hedgehog and the fox, as well as Nick Monk and the late Brian Goodwin for countless inspiring discussions on the philosophy of science. Sara Green acknowledges support from The Danish Research Council for Independent Research/Humanities for funding to the project Philosophy of Contemporary Science in Practice. Melinda Fagan’s research on this paper was supported by the Mosle Foundation and a Faculty Innovation Fellowship from the Humanities Research Center at Rice University. Johannes Jaeger’s research group is supported by the MEC-EMBL agreement for the CRG/EMBL Research Unit in Systems Biology.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Science Studies, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark

    Sara Green

  2. Department of Philosophy, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, 84112, USA

    Melinda Fagan

  3. EMBL/CRG Research Unit in Systems Biology, Centre de Regulació Genòmica (CRG), Barcelona, Spain

    Johannes Jaeger

  4. Universitat Pompeu Fabra (UPF), Barcelona, Spain

    Johannes Jaeger

Authors
  1. Sara Green
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Melinda Fagan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Johannes Jaeger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sara Green.

Additional information

Sara Green, Melinda Fagan, and Johannes Jaeger contributed equally to this work.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Green, S., Fagan, M. & Jaeger, J. Explanatory Integration Challenges in Evolutionary Systems Biology. Biol Theory 10, 18–35 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13752-014-0185-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13752-014-0185-8

Keywords

search

Navigation