Inferring Executable Models from Formalized Experimental Evidence

  • Vivek Nigam
  • Robin Donaldson
  • Merrill Knapp
  • Tim McCarthy
  • Carolyn TalcottEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9308)


Executable symbolic models have been successfully used to analyze networks of biological reactions. However, the process of building an executable model from published experimental findings is still carried out manually. The process is very time consuming and requires expert knowledge. As a first step in addressing this problem, this paper introduces an automated method for deriving executable models from formalized experimental findings called datums. We identify the relevant data in a collection of datums. We then translate the information contained in datums to logical assertions. Together with a logical theory formalizing the interpretation of datums, these assertions are used to infer a knowledge base of reaction rules. These rules can then be assembled into executable models semi-automatically using the Pathway Logic system. We applied our technique to the experimental evidence relevant to Hras activation in response to Egf available in our datum knowledge base. When compared to the Pathway Logic model (curated manually from the same datums by an expert), our model makes most of the same predictions regarding reachability and knockouts. Missing information is due to missing assertions that require reasoning about the effects of mutations and background knowledge to generate. This is being addressed in ongoing work.


Reaction Rule Ground Fact Executable Model Rule Knowledge Base Rule Template 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Albert, R., DasGupta, B., Dondi, R., Sontag, E.: Inferring (biological) signal transduction networks via transitive reductions of directed graphs. Algorithmica 51(2), 129–159 (2008)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Albert, R., DasGupta, B., Sontag, E.: Inference of signal transduction networks from double causal evidence. In: Fenyo, D. (ed.) Methods in Molecular Biology: Topics in Computational Biology. Springer Science+Business Media LLC, New York (2010)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Biocyc pathway/genome database collection (2015)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Blätke, M., Dittrich, A., Rohr, C., Heiner, M., Schaper, F., Marwan, W.: Jak/stat signalling: an executable model assembled from molecule-centred modules demonstrating a module-oriented database concept for systems and synthetic biology. Mol. Biosyst. 9(6), 1290–1307 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Blinov, M.L., et al.: Pathway commons at virtual cell: use of pathway data for mathematical modeling. Bioinformatics 30(2), 292–294 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Clavel, M., Durán, F., Eker, S., Lincoln, P., Martí-Oliet, N., Meseguer, J., Talcott, C. (eds.): All About Maude - A High-Performance Logical Framework. LNCS, vol. 4350. Springer, Heidelberg (2007) zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    DARPA Big Mechanism Project (2015)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fisher, J., Henzinger, T.A.: Executable cell biology. Nat. Biotechnol. 25(11), 1239–1249 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gelfond, M., Lifschitz, V.: Logic programs with classical negation. In: ICLP, pp. 579–597 (1990)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hill, S.M., et al.: Bayesian inference of signaling network topology in a cancer cell line. Bioinformatics 28(21), 2804–2810 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    KEGG: Kyoto encyclopedia of genes and genomes (2015)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Leone, N., Pfeifer, G., Faber, W., Eiter, T., Gottlob, G., Perri, S., Scarcello, F.: The DLV system for knowledge redlvpresentation and reasoning. ACM Trans. Comput. Logic 7, 499–562 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lincoln, P.D., Talcott, C.: Symbolic systems biology and pathway logic. In: Iyengar, S. (ed.) Symbolic Systems Biology, pp. 1–29. Jones and Bartlett, Boston (2010)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Meseguer, J.: Conditional rewriting logic as a unified model of concurrency. Theo. Comput. Sci. 96(1), 73–155 (1992)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Meseguer, J.: Twenty years of rewriting logic. J. Logic Algebraic Program. 81(7–8), 721–781 (2012)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Molinelli, E.J., et al.: Perturbation biology: inferring signaling networks in cellular systems. PLoS Comput. Biol. 9(12), e1003290 (2013). PMID: 24367245, PMCID: PMC3868523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pathway logic (2015)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Protein interaction database (2015)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Reactome pathway database (2015)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ruths, D.: Deriving Executable Models of Biochemical Network Dynamics from Qualitative Data. Rice University (2009)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Talcott, C., Dill, D.L.: Multiple representations of biological processes. In: Priami, C., Plotkin, G. (eds.) Transactions on Computational Systems Biology VI. LNCS (LNBI), vol. 4220, pp. 221–245. Springer, Heidelberg (2006) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Willemsen, T., Feenstra, K.A., Groth, P.T.: Building executable biological pathway models automatically from BioPAX. In: Linked Science 2013: Supporting Reproducibility, Scientific Investigations and Experiments, pp. 2–14 (2013)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vivek Nigam
    • 1
  • Robin Donaldson
    • 2
  • Merrill Knapp
    • 2
  • Tim McCarthy
    • 2
  • Carolyn Talcott
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.Federal University of ParaíbaJoão PessoaBrazil
  2. 2.SRI InternationalMenlo ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations