Advertisement

String Pointer Reduction System

  • Andrzej Ehrenfeucht
  • Tero Harju
  • Ion Petre
  • David M. Prescott
  • Grzegorz Rozenberg
Part of the Natural Computing Series book series (NCS)

Abstract

In Chap. 8 we formalized the MDS structure of micronuclear and intermediate genes through legal strings. In this chapter we shall formalize the gene assembly process in the framework of legal strings. Thus, we shall now formalize the three molecular operations ld, hi, and dlad as operations on (rewriting rules for) legal strings, obtaining string pointer reduction systems. Although the transition from MDS descriptors to legal strings represents an increase in abstraction (we only preserve in legal strings the sequence of pointers), we prove that string pointer reduction systems are equivalent to MDS descriptor pointer reduction systems as far as the strategies for gene assembly are concerned.

Keywords

Gene Assembly Reduction Rule Intermediate Gene Signed Permutation Formal Language Theory 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes on References

  1. 20.
    Ehrenfeucht, A., Petre, I., Prescott, D. M., and Rozenberg, G., String and graph reduction systems for gene assembly in ciliates. Math. Structures Comput. Sci. 12 (2001) 113–134 Google Scholar
  2. 15.
    Ehrenfeucht, A., Harju, T., Petre, I., Prescott, D. M., and Rozenberg, G., Formal systems for gene assembly in ciliates. Theoret. Comput. Sci. 292 (2003) 199–219MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 8.
    Daley, M., Computational Modeling of Genetic Processes in Stichotrichous Ciliates. PhD thesis, University of London, Ontario, Canada (2003)Google Scholar
  4. 9.
    Daley, M., and Kari, L., Some properties of ciliate bio-operations. Lecture Notes in Comput. Sci. 2450 (2003) 116–127MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 4.
    Berman, P., and Hannenhalli, S., Fast sorting by reversals. Combinatorial Pattern Matching, Lecture Notes in Comput. Sci1 1072 (1996) 168–185MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 7.
    Caprara, A., Sorting by reversals is difficult. In S. Istrail, P. Pevzner and M. Waterman (eds.) Proceedings of the 1st Annual International Conference on Computational Molecular Biology (1997) pp. 75–83Google Scholar
  7. 10.
    Daley, M., Ibarra, O. H., and Kari, L., Closure propeties and decision questions of some language classes under ciliate bio-operations. Theoret. Comput. Sci.,to appearGoogle Scholar
  8. 11.
    Dassow, J., Mitrana, V., and Salomaa, A., Operations and languages generating devices suggested by the genome evolution. Theoret. Comput. Sci. 270 (2002) 701–738MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 24.
    Hannenhalli, S., and Pevzner, P. A., Transforming cabbage into turnip (Polynomial algorithm for sorting signed permutations by reversals). In: Proceedings of the 27th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (1995) pp. 178–189Google Scholar
  10. 31.
    Kaplan, H., Shamir, R., and Tarjan, R. E., A faster and simpler algorithm for sorting signed permutations by reversals. SIAM J. Comput. 29 (1999) 880–892MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrzej Ehrenfeucht
    • 1
  • Tero Harju
    • 2
  • Ion Petre
    • 3
  • David M. Prescott
    • 4
  • Grzegorz Rozenberg
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of ColoradoBoulderUSA
  2. 2.Department of MathematicsUniversity of TurkuTurkuFinland
  3. 3.Department of Computer ScienceÅbo Akademi UniversityTurkuFinland
  4. 4.Department of Molecular, Cellular and Developmental BiologyUniversity of ColoradoBoulderUSA
  5. 5.Leiden Institute for Advanced Computer ScienceLeiden UniversityLeidenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations