Mathematical modeling of gene expression: a guide for the perplexed biologist

References

• Ackers GK, Johnson AD, Shea MA. 1982. Quantitative model for gene regulation by lambda phage repressor. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 79:1129–1133.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Albert R, Othmer HG. 2003. The topology of the regulatory interactions predicts the expression pattern of the segment polarity genes in Drosophila melanogaster. J Theor Biol 223:1–18.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arnosti DN, Gray S, Barolo S, Zhou J, Levine M. 1996. The gap protein knirps mediates both quenching and direct repression in the Drosophila embryo. EMBO J 15:3659–3666.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Aza-Blanc P, Ramírez-Weber FA, Laget MP, Schwartz C, Kornberg TB. 1997. Proteolysis that is inhibited by hedgehog targets Cubitus interruptus protein to the nucleus and converts it to a repressor. Cell 89:1043–1053.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Babloyantz A, Sanglier M. 1972. Chemical instabilities of “all-or-none” type in beta-galactosidase induction and active transport. FEBS Lett 23:364–366.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bintu L, Buchler NE, Garcia HG, Gerland U, Hwa T, Kondev J, Phillips R. 2005a. Transcriptional regulation by the numbers: models. Curr Opin Genet Dev 15:116–124.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bintu L, Buchler NE, Garcia HG, Gerland U, Hwa T, Kondev J, Kuhlman T, Phillips R. 2005b. Transcriptional regulation by the numbers: applications. Curr Opin Genet Dev 15:125–135.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bliss RD, Painter PR, Marr AG. 1982. Role of feedback inhibition in stabilizing the classical operon. J Theor Biol 97:177–193.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Buchler NE, Gerland U, Hwa T. 2003. On schemes of combinatorial transcription logic. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100:5136–5141.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cadigan KM, Grossniklaus U, Gehring WJ. 1994. Localized expression of sloppy paired protein maintains the polarity of Drosophila parasegments. Genes Dev 8:899–913.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Carroll SB, Grenier JK, Weatherbee SD. 2001. From DNA to Diversity. MA, USA: Blackwell Science.
   Google Scholar
• Chaves M, Albert R, Sontag ED. 2005. Robustness and fragility of Boolean models for genetic regulatory networks. J Theor Biol 235:431–449.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Coppey M, Berezhkovskii AM, Kim Y, Boettiger AN, Shvartsman SY. 2007. Modeling the bicoid gradient: diffusion and reversible nuclear trapping of a stable protein. Dev Biol 312:623–630.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crocker J, Tamori Y, Erives A. 2008. Evolution acts on enhancer organization to fine-tune gradient threshold readouts. PLoS Biol 6:e263.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Jong H. 2002. Modeling and simulation of genetic regulatory systems: a literature review. J Comput Biol 9:67–103.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dresch JM, Liu X, Arnosti DN, Ay A. 2010. Thermodynamic modeling of transcription: sensitivity analysis differentiates biological mechanism from mathematical model-induced effects. BMC Syst Biol 4:142.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Eldar A, Dorfman R, Weiss D, Ashe H, Shilo BZ, Barkai N. 2002. Robustness of the BMP morphogen gradient in Drosophila embryonic patterning. Nature 419:304–308.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ephrussi A, St Johnston D. 2004. Seeing is believing: the bicoid morphogen gradient matures. Cell 116:143–152.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Erb RS, Michaels GS. 1999. Sensitivity of biological models to errors in parameter estimates. Pac Symp Biocomput 4:53–64.
   Google Scholar
• Fakhouri WD, Ay A, Sayal R, Dresch J, Dayringer E, Arnosti DN. 2010. Deciphering a transcriptional regulatory code: modeling short-range repression in the Drosophila embryo. Mol Syst Biol 6:341.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Filkov V. 2005. Identifying gene regulatory networks from gene expression data. In: Aluru S, ed. Handbook of Computational Molecular Biology. FL, USA: Chapman & Hall/CRC Press, pp. 708–736.
   Google Scholar
• Fomekong-Nanfack Y, Kaandorp JA, Blom J. 2007. Efficient parameter estimation for spatio-temporal models of pattern formation: case study of Drosophila melanogaster. Bioinformatics 23:3356–3363.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Frey HC, Patil SR. 2002. Identification and review of sensitivity analysis methods. Risk Anal 22:553–578.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Friedman N. 2004. Inferring cellular networks using probabilistic graphical models. Science 303:799–805.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Friedman N, Linial M, Nachman I, Pe’er D. 2000. Using Bayesian networks to analyze expression data. J Comput Biol 7:601–620.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gertz J, Cohen BA. 2009. Environment-specific combinatorial cis-regulation in synthetic promoters. Mol Syst Biol 5:244.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gertz J, Siggia ED, Cohen BA. 2009. Analysis of combinatorial cis-regulation in synthetic and genomic promoters. Nature 457:215–218.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goodwin BC. 1965. Oscillatory behavior in enzymatic control processes. Adv Enzyme Regul 3:425–438.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Granek JA, Clarke ND. 2005. Explicit equilibrium modeling of transcription-factor binding and gene regulation. Genome Biol 6:R87.
   Google Scholar
• Gregor T, Bialek W, de Ruyter van Steveninck RR, Tank DW, Wieschaus EF. 2005. Diffusion and scaling during early embryonic pattern formation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102:18403–18407.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gregor T, Wieschaus EF, McGregor AP, Bialek W, Tank DW. 2007. Stability and nuclear dynamics of the bicoid morphogen gradient. Cell 130:141–152.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Griffith JS. 1968a. Mathematics of cellular control processes. I. Negative feedback to one gene. J Theor Biol 20:202–208.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Griffith JS. 1968b. Mathematics of cellular control processes. II. Positive feedback to one gene. J Theor Biol 20:209–216.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gursky VV, Jaeger J, Kozlov KN, Reinitz J, Samsonov AM. 2004. Pattern formation and nuclear divisions are uncoupled in Drosophila segmentation: comparison of spatially discrete and continuous models. Physica D 193:286–302.
   Google Scholar
• Gutenkunst RN, Waterfall JJ, Casey FP, Brown KS, Myers CR, Sethna JP. 2007. Universally sloppy parameter sensitivities in systems biology models. PLoS Comput Biol 3:1871–1878.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• He X, Samee MA, Blatti C, Sinha S. 2010. Thermodynamics-based models of transcriptional regulation by enhancers: the roles of synergistic activation, cooperative binding and short-range repression. PLoS Comput Biol 6:e1000935.
   Google Scholar
• Hecker M, Lambeck S, Toepfer S, van Someren E, Guthke R. 2009. Gene regulatory network inference: data integration in dynamic models—a review. BioSystems 96:86–103.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ingalls B. 2008. Sensitivity analysis: from model parameters to system behaviour. Essays Biochem 45:177–193.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ip YT, Park RE, Kosman D, Bier E, Levine M. 1992. The dorsal gradient morphogen regulates stripes of rhomboid expression in the presumptive neuroectoderm of the Drosophila embryo. Genes Dev 6:1728–1739.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jaeger J, Surkova S, Blagov M, Janssens H, Kosman D, Kozlov KN, Manu, Myasnikova E, Vanario-Alonso CE, Samsonova M, Sharp DH, Reinitz J. 2004a. Dynamic control of positional information in the early Drosophila embryo. Nature 430:368–371.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jaeger J, Blagov M, Kosman D, Kozlov KN, Manu, Myasnikova E, Surkova S, Vanario-Alonso CE, Samsonova M, Sharp DH, Reinitz J. 2004b. Dynamical analysis of regulatory interactions in the gap gene system of Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics 167:1721–1737.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Jaeger SA, Chan ET, Berger MF, Stottmann R, Hughes TR, Bulyk ML. 2010. Conservation and regulatory associations of a wide affinity range of mouse transcription factor binding sites. Genomics 95:185–195.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Janssens H, Hou S, Jaeger J, Kim AR, Myasnikova E, Sharp D, Reinitz J. 2006. Quantitative and predictive model of transcriptional control of the Drosophila melanogaster even skipped gene. Nat Genet 38:1159–1165.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Jostins L, Jaeger J. 2010. Reverse engineering a gene network using an asynchronous parallel evolution strategy. BMC Syst Biol 4:17.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Keränen SV, Fowlkes CC, Luengo Hendriks CL, Sudar D, Knowles DW, Malik J, Biggin MD. 2006. Three-dimensional morphology and gene expression in the Drosophila blastoderm at cellular resolution II: dynamics. Genome Biol 7:R124.
   Google Scholar
• Ludwig MZ, Kreitman M. 1995. Evolutionary dynamics of the enhancer region of even-skipped in Drosophila. Mol Biol Evol 12:1002–1011.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Luengo Hendriks CL, Keränen SV, Fowlkes CC, Simirenko L, Weber GH, DePace AH, Henriquez C, Kaszuba DW, Hamann B, Eisen MB, Malik J, Sudar D, Biggin MD, Knowles DW. 2006. Three-dimensional morphology and gene expression in the Drosophila blastoderm at cellular resolution I: data acquisition pipeline. Genome Biol 7:R123.
   Google Scholar
• MacArthur S, Li XY, Li J, Brown JB, Chu HC, Zeng L, Grondona BP, Hechmer A, Simirenko L, Keränen SV, Knowles DW, Stapleton M, Bickel P, Biggin MD, Eisen MB. 2009. Developmental roles of 21 Drosophila transcription factors are determined by quantitative differences in binding to an overlapping set of thousands of genomic regions. Genome Biol 10:R80.
   Google Scholar
• Mackey MC, Santillán M, Yildirim N. 2004. Modeling operon dynamics: the tryptophan and lactose operons as paradigms. C R Biol 327:211–224.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Madsen K, Nielsen HB, Tingleff O. 2004. Methods for Non-Linear Least Squares Problems. Informatics and Mathematical Modelling, Technical University of Denmark [Online] Available at: http://www2.imm.dtu.dk/pubdb/views/publication_details.php?id=3215 Accessed on November 7, 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Maffahy JM, Simeonov E. 1999. Stability analysis for a mathematical model of the lac operon. Q Appl Math 57:37–53.
   Google Scholar
• Marino S, Hogue IB, Ray CJ, Kirschner DE. 2008. A methodology for performing global uncertainty and sensitivity analysis in systems biology. J Theor Biol 254:178–196.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Markowetz F, Spang R. 2007. Inferring cellular networks—a review. BMC Bioinformatics 8 (Suppl 6):S5.
   Google Scholar
• McGregor AP. 2005. How to get ahead: the origin, evolution and function of bicoid. Bioessays 27:904–913.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Mendes P, Kell D. 1998. Non-linear optimization of biochemical pathways: applications to metabolic engineering and parameter estimation. Bioinformatics 14:869–883.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mendes P, Kell DB. 2001. MEG (Model Extender for Gepasi): a program for the modelling of complex, heterogeneous, cellular systems. Bioinformatics 17:288–289.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moles CG, Mendes P, Banga JR. 2003. Parameter estimation in biochemical pathways: a comparison of global optimization methods. Genome Res 13:2467–2474.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nicolis G, Prigogine I. 1977. Self-Organization in Nonequilibrium Systems. From DIssipative Structures to Order through Fluctuations. NY, USA: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Nocedal J, Wright SJ. 1999. Numerical Optimization. NY, USA: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Noyes MB, Christensen RG, Wakabayashi A, Stormo GD, Brodsky MH, Wolfe SA. 2008. Analysis of homeodomain specificities allows the family-wide prediction of preferred recognition sites. Cell 133:1277–1289.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perkins TJ, Jaeger J, Reinitz J, Glass L. 2006. Reverse engineering the gap gene network of Drosophila melanogaster. PLoS Comput Biol 2:e51.
   Google Scholar
• Reeves GT, Fraser SE. 2009. Biological systems from an engineer’s point of view. PLoS Biol 7:e21.
   Google Scholar
• Reinitz J, Sharp DH. 1995. Mechanism of eve stripe formation. Mech Dev 49:133–158.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Rivera-Pomar R, Jackle H. 1996. From gradients to stripes in Drosophila embryogenesis: filling in the gaps. Trends Genet 12:478–483.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sánchez L, Thieffry D. 2001. A logical analysis of the Drosophila gap-gene system. J Theor Biol 211:115–141.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Santillán M. 2008. Bistable behavior in a model of the lac operon in Escherichia coli with variable growth rate. Biophys J 94:2065–2081.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Santillán M, Mackey MC. 2001. Dynamic behavior in mathematical models of the tryptophan operon. Chaos 11:261–268.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Santillán M, Mackey MC. 2004. Influence of catabolite repression and inducer exclusion on the bistable behavior of the lac operon. Biophys J 86:1282–1292.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schulz C, Tautz D. 1994. Autonomous concentration-dependent activation and repression of Krüppel by hunchback in the Drosophila embryo. Development 120:3043–3049.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Segal E, Raveh-Sadka T, Schroeder M, Unnerstall U, Gaul U. 2008. Predicting expression patterns from regulatory sequence in Drosophila segmentation. Nature 451:535–540.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Segal E, Shapira M, Regev A, Pe’er D, Botstein D, Koller D, Friedman N. 2003. Module networks: identifying regulatory modules and their condition-specific regulators from gene expression data. Nat Genet 34:166–176.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sen AK, Liu WM. 1989. Dynamic analysis of genetic control and regulation of amino acid synthesis: the tryptophan operon in Escherichia coli. Biotechnol Bioeng 35:185–194.
   Google Scholar
• Shea MA, Ackers GK. 1985. The OR control system of bacteriophage lambda. A physical-chemical model for gene regulation. J Mol Biol 181:211–230.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simpson-Brose M, Treisman J, Desplan C. 1994. Synergy between the hunchback and bicoid morphogens is required for anterior patterning in Drosophila. Cell 78:855–865.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sinha S. 1988. Theoretical study of tryptophan operon: application in microbial technology. Biotechnol Bioeng 31:117–124.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Struhl K. 1999. Fundamentally different logic of gene regulation in eukaryotes and prokaryotes. Cell 98:1–4.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Szymanski P, Levine M. 1995. Multiple modes of dorsal-bHLH transcriptional synergy in the Drosophila embryo. EMBO J 14:2229–2238.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Tang Y, Reed P, Wagener T, van Werkhoven K. 2006. Comparing sensitivity analysis methods to advance lumped watershed model identification and evaluation. Hyrdol Earth Syst Sci Discuss 3:3333–3395.
   Google Scholar
• Tavazoie S, Hughes JD, Campbell MJ, Cho RJ, Church GM. 1999. Systematic determination of genetic network architecture. Nat Genet 22:281–285.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vilar JM, Guet CC, Leibler S. 2003. Modeling network dynamics: the lac operon, a case study. J Cell Biol 161:471–476.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vilar JM, Leibler S. 2003. DNA looping and physical constraints on transcription regulation. J Mol Biol 331:981–989.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• von Dassow G, Meir E, Munro EM, Odell GM. 2000. The segment polarity network is a robust developmental module. Nature 406:188–192.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• von Hippel PH, Revzin A, Gross CA, Wang AC. 1974. Non-specific DNA binding of genome regulating proteins as a biological control mechanism: I. The lac operon: equilibrium aspects. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 71:4808–4812.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Weise T. 2009. Global Optimization Algorithms—Theory and Application. [Online] Available at: http://www.it-weise.de/projects/book.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Wong P, Gladney S, Keasling JD. 1997. Mathematical model of the lac operon: inducer exclusion, catabolite repression, and diauxic growth on glucose and lactose. Biotechnol Prog 13:132–143.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yanofsky C, Horn V. 1994. Role of regulatory features of the trp operon of Escherichia coli in mediating a response to a nutritional shift. J Bacteriol 176:6245–6254.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yildirim N, Mackey MC. 2003. Feedback regulation in the lactose operon: a mathematical modeling study and comparison with experimental data. Biophys J 84:2841–2851.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yuh CH, Bolouri H, Davidson EH. 2001. Cis-regulatory logic in the endo16 gene: switching from a specification to a differentiation mode of control. Development 128:617–629.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Yuh CH, Bolouri H, Davidson EH. 1998. Genomic cis-regulatory logic: experimental and computational analysis of a sea urchin gene. Science 279:1896–1902.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhou X, Su Z. 2008. tCal: transcriptional probability calculator using thermodynamic model. Bioinformatics 24:2639–2640.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Zhu C, Byers KJ, McCord RP, Shi Z, Berger MF, Newburger DE, Saulrieta K, Smith Z, Shah MV, Radhakrishnan M, Philippakis AA, Hu Y, De Masi F, Pacek M, Rolfs A, Murthy T, Labaer J, Bulyk ML. 2009. High-resolution DNA-binding specificity analysis of yeast transcription factors. Genome Res 19:556–566.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ziehn T, Tomlin AS. 2008. A global sensitivity study of sulfur chemistry in a premixed methane flame model using HDMR. Int J Chem Kinet 40:742–753.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zinzen RP, Senger K, Levine M, Papatsenko D. 2006. Computational models for neurogenic gene expression in the Drosophila embryo. Curr Biol 16:1358–1365.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar