Advertisement

Generalizing Mechanistic Explanations Using Graph-Theoretic Representations

  • William Bechtel
Part of the History, Philosophy and Theory of the Life Sciences book series (HPTL, volume 11)

Abstract

Mechanistic explanations appeal to the parts, operations, and organizations of mechanisms to explain the phenomena for which they are responsible. Scientists have developed accounts of myriads of mechanisms thought to be operative in biology, each involving distinctive parts and operations organized in idiosyncratic ways. The focus on specific mechanisms (e.g., those found in a particular cell type in a given model organism) appears opposed to the idea that explanations ought to be generalizable to new instances. Some generalizability can arise from the fact that many biological mechanisms inherit their parts and operations from mechanisms found in ancestral species and one can often identify commonalities in these parts and the operations they perform. But organization seems to be idiosyncratic to specific mechanisms, thwarting attempts to develop generalizations about how mechanisms organized in a specific way will behave. For example, as a result of different genes being expressed, the organizational pattern of interactions between proteins varies in different tissues or in the same tissue in different strains of a species. This poses an even greater problem when it is recognized that many biological mechanisms exhibit non-sequential organization of non-linear operations, making it difficult to use mental simulation to determine the behavior of the mechanism. Instead researchers resort to computational models, resulting in dynamic mechanistic explanations that integrate mathematical modeling with empirically ascertained details of parts and operations. These models, though, appear to be even more idiosyncratic, revealing only the behavior of the specific organization employed in a specific mechanism.

In recent years, however powerful tools have been developed for abstracting from the details of individual networks, providing a basis for informative generalizations about how networks employing the same abstract design will behave. These involve developing graph-theoretic representations of mechanisms and analyzing the properties of classes of graphs. Watts and Strogatz, Barabási, and Sporns have shown that large networks (e.g., neural circuits or gene networks) often exhibit a scale-free, small-world organization capable of efficient, flexible coordination of operations and appeal to these properties to explain behaviors of specific mechanisms. Alon and Tyson, focusing on sub-networks with just two to four nodes, have identified different motifs (distinctive micro-architectures such as feedforward loops and double negative feedback loops) that are specialized for particular types of processing. These tools offer abstract organizational principles to which researchers appeal in their efforts to explain the behaviors generated by the mechanisms in which they are implemented. In this paper I show how these projects provide a basis for developing generalizable accounts of complex mechanisms and their dynamical behavior.

Keywords

Dynamic mechanistic explanations Generalizing explanations Graph-theory formalizations Motifs Scale-free small worlds 

Notes

Acknowledgment

Initial research on this project began when I was a Fellow at the Institute for Advanced Studies at Hebrew University. I thank the members of the group for productive discussions and especially Arnon Levy for introducing me to the work of Uri Alon and facilitating a meeting with him. Subsequently I have benefited from many further discussions with Arnon and with Sara Green. I presented much of the material here at colloquia at the University of California, Irvine and the University of Cincinnati, at workshop at the University of Wollongong, and to the reunion conference of the research group at the Institute for Advanced Studies. I thank the audiences at these various forums for very helpful comments. I also thank members of the WORGODS research group (Adele Abrahamsen, Daniel Burnston, and Benjamin Sheredos) at the University of California, San Diego for valuable discussion of the diagrammatic representations of circadian clock mechanisms. Thanks as well to Marta Halina and to the editors of this volume, Pierre-Alain Braillard and Christophe Malaterre, for valuable comments and suggestions.

References

  1. Alon, U. (2007a). An introduction to systems biology: Design principles of biological circuits. Boca Raton: Chapman & Hall/CRC.Google Scholar
  2. Alon, U. (2007b). Network motifs: Theory and experimental approaches. Nature Reviews Genetics, 8, 450–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ankeny, R. A. (2001). Model organisms as models: Understanding the ‘Lingua Franca’ of the human genome project. Philosophy of Science, 68, S251–S261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ankeny, R. A., & Leonelli, S. (2011). What’s so special about model organisms? Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 42, 313–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Artzy-Randrup, Y., Fleishman, S. J., Ben-Tal, N., & Stone, L. (2004). Comment on ‘network motifs: Simple building blocks of complex networks’ and ‘superfamilies of evolved and designed networks’. Science, 305, 1107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baetu, T. (2015). From mechanisms to mathematical models and back to mechanisms: Quantitative mechanistic explanations. In P.-A. Braillard & C. Malaterre (Eds.), Explanation in biology. An enquiry into the diversity of explanatory patterns in the life sciences (pp. 345–363). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  7. Barabási, A.-L., & Albert, R. (1999). Emergence of scaling in random networks. Science, 286, 509–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bechtel, W. (2011). Mechanism and biological explanation. Philosophy of Science, 78, 533–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bechtel, W., & Abrahamsen, A. (2009). Decomposing, recomposing, and situating circadian mechanisms: Three tasks in developing mechanistic explanations. In H. Leitgeb & A. Hieke (Eds.), Reduction and elimination in philosophy of mind and philosophy of neuroscience (pp. 173–186). Frankfurt: Ontos Verlag.Google Scholar
  10. Bechtel, W., & Abrahamsen, A. (2010). Dynamic mechanistic explanation: Computational modeling of circadian rhythms as an exemplar for cognitive science. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 41, 321–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bechtel, W., & Abrahamsen, A. (2011). Complex biological mechanisms: Cyclic, oscillatory, and autonomous. In C. A. Hooker (Ed.), Philosophy of complex systems. Handbook of the philosophy of science (Vol. 10, pp. 257–285). New York: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bechtel, W., & Richardson, R. C. (1993/2010). Discovering complexity: Decomposition and localization as strategies in scientific research. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 1993 edition published by Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Berg, H. C. (2004). E. coli in motion. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Biswal, B., Yetkin, F. Z., Haughton, V. M., & Hyde, J. S. (1995). Functional connectivity in the motor cortex of resting human brain using echo-planar MRI. Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, 34, 537–541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Braillard, P.-A. (2015). Prospect and limits of explaining biological systems in engineering terms. In P.-A. Braillard & C. Malaterre (Eds.), Explanation in biology. An enquiry into the diversity of explanatory patterns in the life sciences (pp. 319–344). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  16. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Buckner, R. L., Andrews-Hanna, J. R., & Schacter, D. L. (2008). The brain’s default network: Anatomy, function, and relevance to disease. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1124, 1–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Bullmore, E., & Sporns, O. (2009). Complex brain networks: Graph theoretical analysis of structural and functional systems. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 10, 186–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cordes, D., Haughton, V. M., Arfanakis, K., Wendt, G. J., Turski, P. A., Moritz, C. H., Quigley, M. A., & Meyerand, M. E. (2000). Mapping functionally related regions of brain with functional connectivity MR imaging. American Journal of Neuroradiology, 21, 1636–1644.Google Scholar
  20. Craver, C. F. (2007). Explaining the brain: Mechanisms and the mosaic unity of neuroscience. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Derrida, B., & Pomeau, Y. (1986). Random networks of automata: A simple annealed approximation. Europhysics Letters, 1, 45–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Elowitz, M. B., & Leibler, S. (2000). A synthetic oscillatory network of transcriptional regulators. Nature, 403, 335–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Erdös, P., & Rényi, A. (1960). On the evolution of random graphs. Proceedings of the Mathematical Institute of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, 5, 17–61.Google Scholar
  24. Ermentrout, G. B., & Kopell, N. (1984). Frequency plateaus in a chain of weakly coupled oscillators. 1. Siam Journal on Mathematical Analysis, 15, 215–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Felleman, D. J., & van Essen, D. C. (1991). Distributed hierarchical processing in the primate cerebral cortex. Cerebral Cortex, 1, 1–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Flyvbjerg, H. (1988). An order parameter for networks of automata. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General, 21, L955–L960.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Glennan, S. (1996). Mechanisms and the nature of causation. Erkenntnis, 44, 50–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Glennan, S. (2002). Rethinking mechanistic explanation. Philosophy of Science, 69, S342–S353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Goldbeter, A. (1995). A model for circadian oscillations in the Drosophila period protein (PER). Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 261, 319–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Goodwin, B. C. (1965). Oscillatory behavior in enzymatic control processes. Advances in Enzyme Regulation, 3, 425–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Green, S., Levy, A., & Bechtel, W. (2015). Design sans adaptation. European Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 5, 15–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Greicius, M. D., Krasnow, B., Reiss, A. L., & Menon, V. (2003). Functional connectivity in the resting brain: A network analysis of the default mode hypothesis. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 100, 253–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Greicius, M. D., Supekar, K., Menon, V., & Dougherty, R. F. (2009). Resting-state functional connectivity reflects structural connectivity in the default mode network. Cerebral Cortex, 19, 72–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hagmann, P., Cammoun, L., Gigandet, X., Meuli, R., Honey, C. J., Wedeen, V. J., & Sporns, O. (2008). Mapping the structural core of human cerebral cortex. PLoS Biology, 6, e159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hardin, P. E., Hall, J. C., & Rosbash, M. (1990). Feedback of the Drosophila period gene product on circadian cycling of its messenger RNA levels. Nature, 343, 536–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. He, Y., Wang, J., Wang, L., Chen, Z. J., Yan, C., Yang, H., Tang, H., Zhu, C., Gong, Q., Zang, Y., & Evans, A. C. (2009). Uncovering intrinsic modular organization of spontaneous brain activity in humans. PLoS One, 4, e5226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hubel, D. H., & Wiesel, T. N. (1962). Receptive fields, binocular interaction and functional architecture in the cat’s visual cortex. Journal of Physiology, 160, 106–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hubel, D. H., & Wiesel, T. N. (1968). Receptive fields and functional architecture of monkey striate cortex. Journal of Physiology, 195, 215–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Issad, T., & Malaterre, C. (2015). Are dynamic mechanistic explanations still mechanistic? In P.-A. Braillard & C. Malaterre (Eds.), Explanation in biology. An enquiry into the diversity of explanatory patterns in the life sciences (pp. 265–292). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  40. Jeong, H., Mason, S. P., Barabasi, A. L., & Oltvai, Z. N. (2001). Lethality and centrality in protein networks. Nature, 411, 41–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Jones, N. (2014). Bowtie structures, pathway diagrams, and topological explanation. Erkenntnis, 79, 1135–1155.Google Scholar
  42. Jones, N., & Wolkenhauer, O. (2012). Diagrams as locality aids for explanation and model construction in cell biology. Biology and Philosophy, 27, 705–721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kalir, S., Mangan, S., & Alon, U. (2005). A coherent feed-forward loop with a SUM input function prolongs flagella expression in Escherichia coli. Molecular Systems Biology, 1, 2005.0006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kauffman, S. A. (1969). Metabolic stability and epigenesis in randomly constructed genetic nets. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 22(3), 437–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kauffman, S. A. (1974). The large scale structure and dynamics of gene control circuits: An ensemble approach. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 44(1), 167–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kauffman, S. A. (1993). The origins of order: Self-organization and selection in evolution. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Konopka, R. J., & Benzer, S. (1971). Clock mutants of Drosophila melanogaster. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 89, 2112–2116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Kopell, N., & Ermentrout, G. B. (1988). Coupled oscillators and the design of central pattern generators. Mathematical Biosciences, 90, 87–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Kuramoto, Y. (1984). Chemical oscillations, waves, and turbulence. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Leonelli, S., Ramsden, E., Nelson, N., & Ankeny, R. A. (2014). Making organisms model humans: Situated models in alcohol research. Science in Context, 27(3), 485–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Levy, A., & Bechtel, W. (2013). Abstraction and the organization of mechanisms. Philosophy of Science, 80, 241–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Luque, B., & Solé, R. (1997). Phase transitions in random networks: Simple analytic determination of critical points. Physical Review E, 55, 257–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Machamer, P., Darden, L., & Craver, C. F. (2000). Thinking about mechanisms. Philosophy of Science, 67, 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Macnab, R. M. (2003). How bacteria assemble flagella. Annual Review of Microbiology, 57, 77–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Mangan, S., Zaslaver, A., & Alon, U. (2003). The coherent feedforward loop serves as a sign-sensitive delay element in transcription networks. Journal of Molecular Biology, 334, 197–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Mangan, S., Itzkovitz, S., Zaslaver, A., & Alon, U. (2006). The incoherent feed-forward loop accelerates the response-time of the gal system of Escherichia coli. Journal of Molecular Biology, 356, 1073–1081.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Mantini, D., Perrucci, M. G., Del Gratta, C., Romani, G. L., & Corbetta, M. (2007). Electrophysiological signatures of resting state networks in the human brain. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104, 13170–13175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Meunier, R. (2012). Stages in the development of a model organism as a platform for mechanistic models in developmental biology: Zebrafish, 1970–2000. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 43, 522–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Milo, R., Shen-Orr, S., Itzkovitz, S., Kashtan, N., Chklovskii, D., & Alon, U. (2002). Network motifs: Simple building blocks of complex networks. Science, 298, 824–827.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Minami, Y., Ode, K. L., & Ueda, H. R. (2013). Mammalian circadian clock: The roles of transcriptional repression and delay. Handbook of Experimental Pharmacology, 217, 359–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Overton, J. A. (2011). Mechanisms, types, and abstractions. Philosophy of Science, 78, 941–954.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Rohlf, T., & Bornholdt, S. (2002). Criticality in random threshold networks: Annealed approximation and beyond. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 310, 245–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Rosenblueth, A., Wiener, N., & Bigelow, J. (1943). Behavior, purpose, and teleology. Philosophy of Science, 10, 18–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Shen-Orr, S. S., Milo, R., Mangan, S., & Alon, U. (2002). Network motifs in the transcriptional regulation network of Escherichia coli. Nature Genetics, 31, 64–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Shulman, G. L., Corbetta, M., Buckner, R. L., Fiez, J. A., Miezin, F. M., Raichle, M. E., & Petersen, S. E. (1997). Common blood flow changes across visual tasks: I. increases in subcortical structures and cerebellum but not in nonvisual cortex. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 9, 624–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Solé, R. V., & Valverde, S. (2006). Are network motifs the spandrels of cellular complexity? Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 21, 419–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Sporns, O., & Kötter, R. (2004). Motifs in brain networks. PLoS Biology, 2, e369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Sporns, O., & Zwi, J. D. (2004). The small world of the cerebral cortex. Neuroinformatics, 2, 145–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Sporns, O., Tononi, G., & Kötter, R. (2005). The human connectome: A structural description of the human brain. PLoS Computational Biology, 1, e42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Stricker, J., Cookson, S., Bennett, M. R., Mather, W. H., Tsimring, L. S., & Hasty, J. (2008). A fast, robust and tunable synthetic gene oscillator. Nature, 456, 516–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Théry, F. (2015). Explaining in contemporary molecular biology: Beyond mechanisms. In P.-A. Braillard & C. Malaterre (Eds.), Explanation in biology. An enquiry into the diversity of explanatory patterns in the life sciences (pp. 113–133). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  72. Tyson, J. J., & Novák, B. (2010). Functional motifs in biochemical reaction networks. Annual Review of Physical Chemistry, 61, 219–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Ueda, H. R., Hayashi, S., Chen, W., Sano, M., Machida, M., Shigeyoshi, Y., Iino, M., & Hashimoto, S. (2005). System-level identification of transcriptional circuits underlying mammalian circadian clocks. Nature Genetics, 37, 187–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. van den Heuvel, M. P., Mandl, R. C. W., Kahn, R. S., & Pol, H. E. H. (2009). Functionally linked resting-state networks reflect the underlying structural connectivity architecture of the human brain. Human Brain Mapping, 30, 3127–3141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Ward, J. J., & Thornton, J. M. (2007). Evolutionary models for formation of metwork motifs and modularity in the Saccharomyces transcription factor network. PLoS Computational Biology, 3, e198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Watts, D., & Strogratz, S. (1998). Collective dynamics of small worlds. Nature, 393, 440–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. White, J. G. (1985). Neuronal connectivity in Caenorhabditis elegans. Trends in Neurosciences, 8, 277–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. White, J. G., Southgate, E., Thomson, J. N., & Brenner, S. (1986). The structure of the nervous system of the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. B Biological Sciences, 314, 1–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Winfree, A. T. (1967). Biological rhythms and the behavior of populations of coupled oscillators. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 16, 15–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Woodward, J. (2013). II—Mechanistic explanation: Its scope and limits. Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume, 87, 39–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Young, M. P. (1993). The organization of neural systems in the primate cerebral cortex. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 252, 13–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Zhang, E. E., & Kay, S. A. (2010). Clocks not winding down: Unravelling circadian networks. Nature Reviews Molecular and Cell Biology, 11, 764–776.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Philosophy, Center for Circadian Biology, and Interdisciplinary Program in Cognitive ScienceUniversity of CaliforniaSan DiegoUSA

Personalised recommendations