Normalizing Chemical Reaction Networks by Confluent Structural Simplification

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9859)


Reaction networks can be simplified by eliminating linear intermediate species in partial steady states. In this paper, we study the question whether this rewrite procedure is confluent, so that for any given reaction network, a unique normal form will be obtained independently of the elimination order. We first contribute a counter example which shows that different normal forms of the same network may indeed have different structures. The problem is that different “dependent reactions” may be introduced in different elimination orders. We then propose a rewrite rule that eliminates such dependent reactions and prove that the extended rewrite system is confluent up to kinetic rates, i.e., all normal forms of the same network will have the same structure. However, their kinetic rates may still not be unique, even modulo the usual axioms of arithmetics. This might seem surprising given that the ODEs of these normal forms are equal modulo these axioms.


Reaction Network Extended Rewrite System Ordinary Differential Equations (ODEs) Linear Intermediates Unique Normal Form 
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.
    Calzone, L., Fages, F., Soliman, S.: BIOCHAM: an environment for modeling biological systems and formalizing experimental knowledge. Bioinformatics 22(14), 1805–1807 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chaouiya, C.: Petri net modelling of biological networks. Briefings Bioinf. 8(4), 210–219 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fages, F., Gay, S., Soliman, S.: Inferring reaction systems from ordinary differential equations. Theor. Comput. Sci. 599, 64–78 (2015)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Feinberg, M.: Chemical reaction network structure and the stability of complex isothermal reactors-i. The deficiency zero and deficiency one theorems. Chem. Eng. Sci. 42(10), 2229–2268 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gagneur, J., Klamt, S.: Computation of elementary modes: a unifying framework and the new binary approach. BMC Bioinf. 5(1), 175 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hucka, M., et al.: The systems biology markup language (SBML): a medium for representation and exchange of biochemical network models. Bioinformatics 19(4), 524–531 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Huet, G.P.: Confluent reductions: abstract properties and applications to term rewriting systems. J. ACM 27(4), 797–821 (1980)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Juty, N., Ali, R., Glont, M., Keating, S., Rodriguez, N., Swat, M.J., Wimalaratne, S.M., Hermjakob, H., Le Novère, N., Laibe, C., Chelliah, V.: BioModels: Content, Features, Functionality and Use. CPT Pharmacometrics Syst. Pharmacol. 4, 55–68 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    King, E.L., Altman, C.: A schematic method of deriving the rate laws for enzyme-catalyzed reactions. J. Phys. Chem. 60(10), 1375–1378 (1956)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kuo-Chen, C., Forsen, S.: Graphical rules of steady-state reaction systems. Can. J. Chem. 59(4), 737–755 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kuttler, C., Lhoussaine, C., Nebut, M.: Rule-based modeling of transcriptional attenuation at the tryptophan operon. Trans. Comput. Syst. Biol. XII, 199–228 (2010)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Madelaine, G., Lhoussaine, C., Niehren, J.: Attractor equivalence: an observational semantics for reaction networks. In: Fages, F., Piazza, C. (eds.) FMMB 2014. LNCS, vol. 8738, pp. 82–101. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Madelaine, G., Lhoussaine, C., Niehren, J.: Structural Simplification of Chemical Reaction Networks Preserving Deterministic Semantics. In: Roux, O., Bourdon, J. (eds.) CMSB 2015. LNCS, vol. 9308, pp. 133–144. Springer, Heidelberg (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mäder, U., Schmeisky, A.G., Flórez, L.A., Stülke, J.: Subtiwiki-a comprehensive community resource for the model organism bacillus subtilis. Nucleic Acids Res. 40, 1278–1287 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Niehren, J.: Uniform confluence in concurrent computation. J. Funct. Program. 10(5), 453–499 (2000)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Niehren, J., John, M., Versari, C., Coutte, F., Jacques, P.: Qualitative reasoning for reaction networks with partial kinetic information. In: Roux, O., Bourdon, J. (eds.) CMSB 2015. LNCS, vol. 9308, pp. 157–169. Springer, Heidelberg (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Radulescu, O., Gorban, A., Zinovyev, A., Lilienbaum, A.: Robust simplifications of multiscale biochemical networks. BMC Syst. Biol. 2(1), 86 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Radulescu, O., Gorban, A.N., Zinovyev, A., Noel, V.: Reduction of dynamical biochemical reactions networks in computational biology. Frontiers in Genetics (2012)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sáez, M., Wiuf, C., Feliu, E.: Graphical reduction of reaction networks by linear elimination of species. arXiv preprint 2015. arXiv:1509.03153
  20. 20.
    Schmierer, B., Tournier, A.L., Bates, P.A., Hill, C.S.: Mathematical modeling identifies Smad nucleocytoplasmic shuttling as a dynamic signal-interpreting system. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 105(18), 6608–6613 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tonello, E., Owen, M.R., Farcot, E.: On the elimination of intermediate species in chemical reaction networks (2016, in preparation)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of LilleLilleFrance
  2. 2.CRISTAL, CNRS UMR 9189LilleFrance
  3. 3.University of NottinghamNottinghamUK
  4. 4.InriaLilleFrance

Personalised recommendations