Bulletin of Mathematical Biology

, Volume 66, Issue 3, pp 447–471 | Cite as

Entity grammar systems: A grammatical tool for studying the hierarchal structures of biological systems



The hierarchal structures of biological systems are the typical complex hierarchal dynamical structures in the physical world, the effective investigations on which could not be performed with the existing formal grammar systems. To meet the needs of the investigation on these kinds of systems, especially the emerging field of system biology, a grammatical tool was proposed in the present article. Because the grammatical toolmainly deals with the systems composed of structured entities, they are called entity grammar systems (EGSs). The structure of entities in EGSs have the general form of the objects in the physical world, which means EGSs could be used as a tool to study the complex system composed of many objects with different structures, just like the biological systems. The article contains the formal definition of EGSs and the hierarchy of EGSs, which is congruent with the Chomsky hierarchy. The relationship between EGSs and array grammar systems, graph grammar systems, tree grammar systems, multi-set grammar systems are discussed to show the generative power of EGSs. At the end of the present article, the steps to define new grammar systems with the form of EGS are provided and the possible applicable fields of EGSs are discussed.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Abe, N. and H. Mamitsuka (1997). Predicting protein secondary structure using stochastic tree grammars. Mach. Learn. 29, 275–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adleman, L. (1994). Molecular computation of solutions to combinatorial problems. Science 266, 1021–1024.Google Scholar
  3. Berry, G. and G. Boudol (1996). The chemical abstract machine. Theor. Comput. Sci. 96, 217–248.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Book, R. and F. Otto (1993). String Rewriting Systems, Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  5. Brendel, V. and H. G. Busse (1984). Genome structure described by formal languages. Nucleic Acids Res. 12, 2561–2568.Google Scholar
  6. Brown, R. and A. Heyworth (1999). Using rewriting systems to compute Kan extensions and induced actions of categories. Department of Mathematics, University of Bangor, UK.Google Scholar
  7. Csuhaj-Varju, E., J. Dassow, J. Kelemen and G. H. Paun (1994). Grammar Systems: A Grammatical Approach to Distribution and Cooperation, London: Gordon and Breach Science Publishers.Google Scholar
  8. Dershowiz, N. and I. P. Jouannaud (1990). Rewrite systems, in Handbook of Theoretical Computer Science, Vol. B: Formal Models and Semantics, J. van Leuwen (Ed.), Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 243–320.Google Scholar
  9. Fernau, H., R. Freund and M. Holzer (1999). Regulated array grammars of finite index. Part I: theoretical investigations, in Grammatical Models of Multi-agent Systems (1999), G. H. Paun and A. Salomaa (Eds), Amsterdam, Netherlands: Gordon and Breach Science Publishers.Google Scholar
  10. Head, T. (1987). Formal language theory and DNA: an analysis of generative capacity of recombinant behaviors. Bull. Math. Biol. 49, 737–759.MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Head, T. (1992). Splicing schemes and DNA, in Lindermayer Systems: Impact on Theoretical Computer Science, Computer Graphics and Developmental Biology, G. Rozenberg and A. Salomaa (Eds), Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 371–383.Google Scholar
  12. Head, T., G. H. Paun and D. Pixton (1997). Language theory and molecular genetics, in Handbook of Language Theory, vol. 2, chapter 7, G. Rozenberg and A. Salomaa (Eds), Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  13. Kari, L. (1996). DNA computers: tomorrow’s reality. Bulletin of EATCS 59, 256–266.Google Scholar
  14. Kudlek, M., C. Martinvide and G. H. Paun (2000). Toward FMT (Formal Macroset Theory), in Pre-proceedings of the Workshop on Multiset Processing (Curtea de Arges, August 21–25, 2000), pp. 149–158.Google Scholar
  15. Lindenmayer, A. (1968). Mathematical models for cellular interaction in development, I and II. J. Theor. Biol. 18, 280–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Paun, G. H. (Ed.), (1995). Artificial Life; Grammatical Models, Bucharest: Black Sea University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Przytycka, T., R. Srinivasan and G. D. Rose (2002). Recursive domains in proteins. Protein Sci. 11, 409–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Rozenberg, G. and E. Welzl (1986). Boundary NLC graph grammars—basic definitions, normal forms, and complexity. Information and Control 69, 136–167.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Salomaa, A. (1973). Formal Language, Reading, MA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  20. Schultz, J., F. Milpetz, P. Bork and C. P. Ponting (1998). SMART, a simple modular architecture research tool: identification of signalling domains. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 95, 5857–5864.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Searls, D. B. (1988). Proc. 7th Natl Conf. Artif. Intell., Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press, pp. 386–391.Google Scholar
  22. Searls, D. B. (2002). The language of gene. Nature 420, 211–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Simeoni, M. and M. Staniszkis (1999). Cooperating graph grammar systems, in Grammatical Models of Multi-agent Systems, G. H. Paun and A. Salomaa (Eds), Amsterdam, Netherlands: Gordon and Breach Science Publishers.Google Scholar
  24. Syropoulos, A. (2000). Mathematics of multisets, in Pre-proceedings of the Workshop on Multiset Processing (Curtea de Arges, August 21–25, 2000), pp. 286–295.Google Scholar
  25. Westhead, D. R., T. W. Slidel, T. P. Flores and J. M. Thornton (1999). Protein structural topology: automated analysis and diagrammatic representation. Protein Sci. 8, 897–904.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Society for Mathematical Biology 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Laboratory of Protein EngineeringPeking UniversityBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations