Advertisement

Determining Gene Function in Boolean Networks using SAT

Chapter

Abstract

There are many instances where the circuit topology of the GRN is known, but the logic function of each node in this topology is not. In addition, a number N of measurements on the gene expression states of the GRN are given or are known. Using this information, this chapter will derive SAT based algorithms which yield the logic of every node in the GRN so that the N gene expression measurements and topology are satisfied. If N is too small, then a multitude of GRNs may satisfy the observed behavior, yielding a reduced certainty in the final result due to lack of data. We will also study the behavior of the number of satisfying GRNs with respect to the number of observations N.

References

  1. 1.
    Guelzim, N. et al.: Topological and causal structure of the yeast transcriptional regulatory network. Nat. Genet.,31, 60–63, (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kauffman, S. A.: Metabolic stability and epigenesis in randomly constructed genetic nets. J. Theor.Biol.. 22(3), 437–467, (1969)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lin, P. K., Khatri S.P., Determining gene function in Boolean networks using Boolean satisfiability, in Genomic Signal Processing and Statistics (GENSIPS), 2012 IEEE International Workshop on. IEEE, pp. 1–4. (2012)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Layek, R., Datta, A., Dougherty, E.R.: From biological pathways to regulatory networks, Decision and Control (CDC), 2010 49th IEEE Conference on, pp. 5781–5786. (2010)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Layek, R., Datta, A., Bittner, M., Dougherty, E.R.: Cancer therapy design based on pathway logic. Bioinform. 27(4), 548–555 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lin, P. K., Khatri S.P.: Inference of gene predictor set using Boolean satisfiability, in Genomic Signal Processing and Statistics (GENSIPS), 2010, IEEE International Workshop on, pp. 1–4 (2010)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lin, P. K., Khatri S.P.: Efficient cancer therapy using Boolean networks and Max-SAT-based ATPG. Genomic Signal Processing and Statistics (GENSIPS), 2011 IEEE International Workshop on. IEEE, pp. 87–90. (2011)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lin, P. K., Khatri S.P.: Application of logic synthesis to the understanding and cure of genetic diseases, Proceedings of the 49th Annual Design Automation Conference, pp. 734–740. (2012)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jacob, F., Monod, M., Genetic regulatory mechanisms in the synthesis of proteins, J. Mol. Biol., 3(3), 318–356 (1961)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Karnaugh, M., The map method for synthesis of combinational logic circuits, Trans. AIEE. 72(9), 593–599, (1953)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gosti, W., Khatri, S.P., Sangiovanni-Vincentelli, A.L., Addressing the timing closure problem by integrating logic optimization and placement, in Proceedings of the 2001 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Computer-Aided Design, Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2001, ICCAD '01, 224-231, IEEE PressGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Yamashita, S., Sawada, H., Nagoya, A.: A new method to express functional permissibilities for LUT based FPGAs and its applications, in Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer-Aided Design, pp. 254–61. (1996)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Brayton, R.: Understanding SPFDs: A new method for specifying flexibility, in Workshop Notes, International Workshop on Logic Synthesis, Tahoe City (1997)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sinha, S., Brayton, R.: Implementation and use of SPFDs in optimizing Boolean networks, in Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer-Aided Design, pp. 103–10. (1998)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lin, B., Newton, A.R.: Synthesis of Multiple Level Logic from Symbolic High-Level Description Languages, in Proc. of the Intl. Conf. on VLSI, pp. 187–196. (1989)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Villa, T., Sangiovanni-Vincentelli, A.L., NOVA: State Assignment of Finite State Machines for Optimal Two-Level Logic Implementations, IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits. 9(9), 905–924 (1990)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Een, N., Sorensson, N., The minisat page, http://minisat.se. Accessed April 6 (2010)
  18. 18.
    Moskewicz, M., Madigan, C., Zhao, Y., Zhang, L., Malik, S., Chaff: Engineering an efficient SAT solver, in Proceedings of the Design Automation Conference, July (2001)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Corbin, F., Bordeaux, L., Hamadi, Y., Fanchon, E., Trilling, L.: A SAT-based approach to decipher gene regulatory networks. Integrative Post-Genomics, RIAMS, Lyon, (2007)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Dubrova, E., Teslenko, M.: A SAT-based algorithm for finding attractors in synchronous Boolean networks. IEEE/ACM Trans. Computat. Biolo. Bioinform. 8(5), 1393–1399 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Weinberg, R.A.: The Biology of Cancer, Garland Science, Princeton. (2006)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Batchelor, E., Loewer, A., Lahav, G.: The ups and downs of p53: understanding protein dynamics in single cells. Nat. Rev. Cancer. 9(5), 371–377 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Electrical and Computer EngineeringTexas A&M UniversityCollege StationUSA

Personalised recommendations