Systems biology reviews

Systems biology reviews DEFAULT

Latest Research and Reviews

  • Research
    | Open Access

    • Ryan E. Langendorf
    •  & Matthew G. Burgess
  • Research
    | Open Access

    • Rahil Sachak-Patwa
    • , Helen M. Byrne
    •  & Robin N. Thompson
  • Research
    | Open Access

    The true number of infections from SARS-Cov-2 is unknown and believed to exceed the reported numbers by several fold. National testing policies, in particular, can strongly affect the proportion of undetected cases. Here, the authors propose a method that reconstructs incidence profiles within minutes, solely from publicly available, time-stamped viral genomes.

    • Maureen Rebecca Smith
    • , Maria Trofimova
    •  & Max von Kleist
  • Research
    | Open Access

    • Christopher Z. Eddy
    • , Helena Raposo
    •  & Bo Sun
  • Research |

    A deep-learning framework interprets multiomic data across epidermal differentiation, identifying cooperative DNA sequence rules that regulate gene modules. Massively parallel reporter assay analysis validates temporal dynamics and cis-regulatory logic.

    • Daniel S. Kim
    • , Viviana I. Risca
    •  & Paul A. Khavari
  • Research |

    Interface mutations in the GTPase switch protein Gsp1 (the yeast homologue of human RAN) allosterically affect the kinetics of the switch cycle, revealing a systems-level mechanism of multi-specificity.

    • Tina Perica
    • , Christopher J. P. Mathy
    •  & Tanja Kortemme

All Research & Reviews

Sours: https://www.nature.com/subjects/systems-biology
PLOS

x

Figures

Fig 1

Citation: Hillmer RA (2015) Systems Biology for Biologists. PLoS Pathog 11(5): e1004786. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1004786

Editor: Heather L. True-Krob, Washington University School of Medicine, UNITED STATES

Published: May 14, 2015

Copyright: © 2015 Rachel A. Hillmer. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited

Funding: This work has been supported by the grants IOS-1121425 and DBI-1146819 from the National Science Foundation (http://www.nsf.gov/) and by a Doctoral Dissertation Fellowship from the University of Minnesota (http://www1.umn.edu/twincities/index.html). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Have You Been Put Off by Systems Biology?

Do you avoid papers thick with mathematical details and unfamiliar statistical analyses? If so, this article is for you! Systems biology, at its core, is not a set of computational and mathematical techniques; these are merely tools, incredibly useful, but secondary. The heart of systems biology is simple: explaining how a system works requires an integrated outlook. For any phenotype—molecular, macroscopic, or ecological—a set of interrelated factors exist that contribute to this phenotype. Since these factors interact, they need to be studied collectively, not merely individually. That’s it!

What Is a System?

A system is a collection of parts and factors that work together to complete a task. Conversely, for a given task, the system is defined by the set of all parts and factors which influence, accomplish, or impede that task.

Some systems are easy to identify. Think of a machine, like a car. The body of the car houses all the parts that make up the automobile. The external boundary makes the system easy to identify. Some systems are less easily identified. Consider all the factors that influence traffic flow in a city. The first example is concrete, the second more abstract; both are systems.

What about Some Biological Systems?

In the systems biology literature, the most commonly discussed systems are networks of genes or proteins. Sometimes these are very large systems: the set of all genes in an organism and the spatiotemporal control of these genes (e.g., [1–3]). But there is no fixed scale at which systems biology operates. Your system could be an ecosystem of plants and the soil services they provide and require; your system could be an epidemiological system with hosts, pathogens, and vectors. Your system could be a single molecular process, like the regulation of an important gene. Or it could be a complex system like the induction of an immune response within a cell, tissue, or organism. If there is a biological question you wish to ask, or a process you wish to study, there is, de facto, a set of parts which contribute to that process; these parts define the system. Biological parts are interconnected and interdependent. Systems biology recognizes this and provides tools and frameworks to both accurately capture these relationships and deduce the system behavior that emerges from these relationships.

My System Has Tens of Thousands of Molecular Parts. Aren’t Your Claims That Systems Biology Will Help Me Just Wild Speculation?

Happily, no. The solution: taking stock of major effects and ignoring minor ones. Good systems biology is a balance between reductionism—breaking a system apart into smaller parts and defining the function of these parts—and synthesis—understanding how the parts cooperate to produce the behavior of the whole. We have two options: (1) discover and study small modular subsystems [4] or (2) approximate a complex system via a tractable number of components [5] (e.g., [6]). To do the latter, we first look for the parts which have large effects on our process or phenotype of interest, so-called “large-effect” parts [7]. For example, if the system is an organism-level process, these may be hormone concentrations, which by definition regulate a large number of molecular processes, e.g., [6,8]. Or, they may be cells in the circulatory system, which can monitor and regulate multiple tissues, e.g., [9]. The hubs of a complex system serve as excellent candidates for major-effect parts (Fig 1). Hubs, by definition, do either or both of the following: (1) integrate regulatory information from many parts or system inputs, (2) transduce this information to regulate multiple processes or parts. If we first get a good approximation of the basic functionality of a system, we can then add on the bells and whistles.

thumbnail
Download:

Fig 1. Combinations of system perturbations assist in discovering the mechanisms that drive complex biological system responses.

Complex systems, e,g., the immune system of an organism, are notably complicated in two ways: (1) they are tuned to respond differently to different system inputs, and (2) the system that mediates outputs as a function of inputs is full of network redundancy, which ensures operation under nonideal circumstances. Thus, learning the rules for how a complex system operates requires coincident, varied, and likely combinatorial external and internal perturbations to a system. Mild perturbations are likely buffered by the system; strong perturbations are the key. Complex systems often have numerous parts; how do we decide which parts should be perturbed? Network hubs—parts which integrate numerous signals and/or regulate many parts—are excellent candidates for an abbreviated parts list. We then monitor system behavior, in response to external perturbations, when different combinations of hubs have been rendered inoperable. Data from this monitoring can enable mathematical reconstruction of how major system parts are stimulated, influence each other, and modulate system output. These mathematical models are then used to direct further experiments, which leads to model refinement. Goals of iterative model building include: furthering our fundamental understanding of the system and predicting properties of the system relevant in applied settings. Image: conceptual diagram of a complex system that responds to system inputs (i.e., external perturbations).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1004786.g001

To figure out the major-effect parts and/or processes of your system, there are a host of established biological methods, including:

  1. observation
  2. forward genetic screens
  3. genome-sequence-assisted guesses
  4. gene expression analysis
  5. an external system perturbation (e.g., exogenous chemical application)

How Do I Define the Rules Governing My Biological System?

Once you have a first-pass parts list assembled, you will need to combine two types of experimental factors:

  1. external system perturbations
  2. internal system perturbations
Why are perturbations needed? As in classical genetics, we learn about systems best by breaking or aggravating them in defined ways, observing how those induced changes modulate the process or phenotype of interest. External perturbations include, for example, treating a tissue with pathogens or pathogen-derived compounds. An internal perturbation involves removing, disabling, or modifying one or more system parts. Diverse internal system perturbations are needed because complex, robust systems are often full of redundancies and backups. Robust systems buffer mild perturbations. Ideally, a combinatorial set of internal perturbations that jointly abolish a phenotype would be challenged by a representative diverse suite of external system perturbations that stimulate the system in different precise ways [10] (e.g., [6,11]).

The system should be measured across appropriate timecourses to capture when the system is dynamically responding to the (especially external) perturbations. Quantitative monitoring of both the system parts and the system output is ideal. Such data empowers mathematical deduction of the mechanisms by which system parts control and modulate the system response.

What Is a Mathematical Model?

A mathematical model is a set of relationships, usually written as equations, that describe how the parts of the system respond to system inputs, regulate each other, and control system output. Why do we need math to do this? Math is just formalized logic, so in theory we could just use descriptive sentences. But for all except the simplest relationships, exhaustively working out the implications of these relationships is prohibitively laborious and error-prone. Moreover, language can be imprecise, where math naturally tends towards precise expression of relationships. Why is a model valuable? Models are hypothesis generation tools, efficient ways to scout out novel and interesting system behavior. We use them to explore in silico varied external conditions and internal system modifications. Accomplishing such exploration experimentally is usually far more labor intensive, costly, and perhaps even impossible. A good mathematical model is an imperfect but useful virtual copy of a system that reproduces the salient features of the system. This copy lets us play with the system using computational techniques, analogous to how physical toy models help chemists think about the structure of a molecule.

Perfect system knowledge is not a prerequisite for starting to build a mathematical model. Model building is an iterative procedure: model, predict, test experimentally, repeat all. Modeling, when done well, will help channel further experiments in the most fruitful directions.

Have no fear, you do not need to become an expert in math. You need only make friends with someone who is. And your collaborator very much needs your input on the model. Mathematical approaches and structures need to be chosen which capture and reflect the essence of each biological system. For this, the training and intuition of a biologist is irreplaceable.

Are There Any Systems Biology Success Stories?

Why, yes, indeed there are. Successful mathematical modeling of biology has a long history that began long before the genomics era. Here are some highlights. Tissue models of the human heart stand on over half a century of iterative modeling, experimentation, and model refinement. Birthed from this long labor, the virtual heart, used in clinical settings, may be systems biology’s brightest star [12,13]. In 1952, British mathematician Alan Turing proposed that leopard spots, zebra stripes, and spirals in nature could arise by a simple reaction-diffusion equation imposed on a homogenous system [14]. It took decades to develop the molecular tools to test his hypothesis, but he was right [15,16]. During the 2001 United Kingdom outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease, mathematical models were used to predict disease spread and assisted in deciding control measures [17]. An integrated biomedical informatics program, aneurIST, predicts rupture of incidentally discovered cerebral aneurysms using additional patient-specific medical data. During active model development, it was estimated that this modeling effort saved thousands to millions of euros annually in unnecessary procedures [18]. A few excellent molecular systems biology models are described on Nicolas Le Novère’s blog [19]. For numerous additional examples, see the European Bioinformatics Institute’s (EMBL-EBI) “Models of the Month” database, part of its BioModels database [20].

Should You Become a Systems Biologist?

Are you perfectly content to study a small system? There’s no pressure to take on a wildly ambitious system, understanding the function of an entire cell, or modeling the ecosystem of planet Earth. For any biological question, a relevant system exists; the study of this system will benefit from including mathematical models in your toolkit.

You may be hesitant to consider becoming a systems biologist. Math fear is a real thing. But who knows? There might be a collaborator waiting for you just across campus. From my experience as a physicist turned biologist, I can confidently say there are mathematicians, physical and computer scientists, and engineers who have been lured by the extraordinariness of biology.

Further Reading

  1. Wolkenhauer O. Why model? Front Physiol. 2014 Jan 28; 5: 21.
  2. Wolkenhauer O, Fell D, De Meyts P, Blüthgen N, Herzel H, Le Novère N et al. SysBioMed report: advancing systems biology for medical applications. IET Syst Biol. 2009 May; 3(3): 131–6.
  3. Cohen JE. Mathematics is biology’s next microscope, only better; biology is mathematics’ next physics, only better. PLoS Biol. 2004 Dec; 2(12): e439.
  4. Kitano H. Computational systems biology. Nature. 2002 Nov 14; 420(6912): 206–10.
  5. Wingreen N, Botstein D. Back to the future: education for systems-level biologists. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2006 Nov; 7(11): 829–32.

Acknowledgments

I thank Dr. Heather L. True-Krob for encouraging me to write this article. I gratefully acknowledge Dr. Fumi Katagiri, my thesis adviser, for his influence on my perspective of systems biology. I thank the reviewers for their clear and constructive comments. I also thank the University of Minnesota Theory Group for their many excellent suggestions of success stories of ecological-scale mathematical models. Finally, I thank all the adventurous systems biologists, past and present, who have persevered in communicating across the vast cultural divide between mathematics and biology.

References

  1. 1. Lim LP, Lau NC, Garrett-Engele P, Grimson A, Schelter JM, Castle J et al. Microarray analysis shows that some microRNAs downregulate large numbers of target mRNAs. Nature. 2005 Feb 17; 433(7027): 769–73. pmid:15685193
  2. 2. Eichten SR, Briskine R, Song J, Li Q, Swanson-Wagner R, Hermanson PJ et al. Epigenetic and genetic influences on DNA methylation variation in maize populations. Plant Cell. 2013 Aug; 25(8): 2783–97. pmid:23922207
  3. 3. Costanzo M, Baryshnikova A, Bellay J, Kim Y, Spear ED, Sevier CS et al. The genetic landscape of a cell. Science. 2010 Jan 22; 327(5964): 425–31. pmid:20093466
  4. 4. Alon U. An introduction to systems biology: Design principles of biological circuits. Boca Raton: Chapman & Hall/CRC; 2007. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-385075-1.00013-5 pmid:21601092
  5. 5. Ellner SP, Guckenheimer J. Dynamic models in biology. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 2006.
  6. 6. Tsuda K, Sato M, Stoddard T, Glazebrook J, Katagiri F. Network properties of robust immunity in plants. PLoS Genet. 2009 Dec; 5(12): e1000772. pmid:20011122
  7. 7. Coe R. It's the effect size, stupid: What effect size is and why it is important. Annual Conference of the British Educational Research Association; 2002 Sep 12–14; University of Exeter, England. http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00002182.htm.
  8. 8. Gordon SP, Chickarmane VS, Ohno C and Meyerowitz EM. Multiple feedback loops through cytokinin signaling control stem cell number within the Arabidopsis shoot meristem. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2009 Sep 22; 106 (38): 16529–34. pmid:19717465
  9. 9. Košmirlj A, Read EL, Qi Y, Allen TM, Altfeld M, Deeks SG et al. Effects of thymic selection on of the T-cell repertoire on HLA class 1-associated control of HIV infection. Nature. 2010 May 20; 465(7296): 350–4. pmid:20445539
  10. 10. Jansen RC. Studying complex biological systems using multifactorial perturbation. Nat Rev Genet. 2003 Feb; 4(2): 145–51. pmid:12560811
  11. 11. Kim Y, Tsuda K, Igarashi D, Hillmer RA, Sakakibara H, Myers CL et al. Mechanisms underlying robustness and tunability in a plant immune signaling network. Cell Host Microbe. 2014 Jan 15; 15(1): 84–94. pmid:24439900
  12. 12. Freedman DH. The virtual heart. Technology Review. 2004 Mar 1. Available from: http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/402529/the-virtual-heart/.
  13. 13. Kohl P, Noble D. Systems biology and the virtual physiological human. Mol Syst Biol 2009; 5: 292. pmid:19638973
  14. 14. Turing AM. The Chemical Basis of Morphogenesis. Phil Trans R Soc Lond B. 1952; 237(641): 37–42.
  15. 15. Economou AD, Ohazama A, Porntaveetus T, Sharpe PT, Kondo S, Basson MA, et al. Periodic stripe formation by a Turing mechanism operating at growth zones in the mammalian palate. Nat Genet. 2012 Feb 19; 44(3): 348–51. pmid:22344222
  16. 16. Ouellette J. Biologists home in on Turing patterns. Quanta Magazine [Internet]. 2013 Mar 25 [cited Feb 26 2015]: [about 5 p.]. https://www.quantamagazine.org/20130325-biologists-home-in-on-turing-patterns/.
  17. 17. Keeling MJ. Models of foot-and-mouth disease. Proc Biol Sci. 2005 Jun 22; 272(1569): 1195–202. pmid:16024382
  18. 18. www.aneurist.org [Internet]. Sheffield, UK: The University of Sheffield; c2006-10 [cited 2015 Feb 26]. http://www.aneurist.org/.
  19. 19. Le Novère N. Modelling success stories in systems biology. 2013 Feb 19 [cited 2015 Feb 25]. In: Phosphenes [Internet]. Cambridgeshire, UK: Nicolas Le Novère. [2012 Feb 24]—. https://nlenov.wordpress.com/2013/02/19/modelling-success-stories-in-systems-biology/.
  20. 20. www.ebi.ac.uk/biomodels-main/modelmonth [Internet]. Cambridgeshire, UK: European Molecular Biology Laboratory-European Bioinformatics Institute; c2006- [cited 2015 Feb 26]. http://www.ebi.ac.uk/biomodels-main/modelmonth.
Check for updates via CrossMark

Subject Areas

?

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

We want your feedback.Do these Subject Areas make sense for this article? Click the target next to the incorrect Subject Area and let us know. Thanks for your help!

  • Systems biology 
  • Complex systems 
  • Mathematical models 
  • Biologists 
  • Behavior 
  • Genomics 
  • Heart 
  • Immune response 
Sours: https://journals.plos.org/plospathogens/article?id=10.1371/journal.ppat.1004786
  1. Rahway crime rate
  2. Nexus 7 hack
  3. Offerup cars miami
  4. Amazon block 18
  5. Quiet canyon golf

A conceptual review on systems biology in health and diseases: from biological networks to modern therapeutics

  • Alon U (2003) Biological networks: the tinkerer as an engineer. Science 301(5641):1866–1867

    CASPubMed Google Scholar

  • Alon U (2007) Network motifs: theory and experimental approaches. Nat Rev Genet 8:450–461

    CASPubMed Google Scholar

  • Andasari V, Gerisch A, Lolas G, South A, Chaplain MJ (2011) Mathematical modeling of cancer cell invasion of tissue: biological insight from mathematical analysis and computational simulation. J Math Biol 63(1):141–171

    PubMed Google Scholar

  • Arrell DK, Terzic A (2010) Network systems biology for drug discovery. Clin Pharmacol Ther 88(1):120–125

    CASPubMed Google Scholar

  • Azmi AS, Wang Z, Philip PA, Mohammad RM, Sarkar FH (2010) Proof of concept: network and systems biology approaches aid in the discovery of potent anticancer drug combinations. Mol Cancer Ther 9(12):3137–3144

    CASPubMed CentralPubMed Google Scholar

  • Bajikar S, Janes K (2012) Multiscale models of cell signaling. Ann Biomed Eng 40(11):2319–2327

    PubMed CentralPubMed Google Scholar

  • Barabási A-L (2007) Network medicine—from obesity to the “diseasome”. N Engl J Med 357(4):404–407

    PubMed Google Scholar

  • Barkai N, Leibler S (1997) Robustness in simple biochemical networks. Nature 387(6636):913–917

    CASPubMed Google Scholar

  • Bauer-Mehren A, Furlong LI, Sanz F (2009). Pathway databases and tools for their exploitation: benefits, current limitations and challenges. Mol Syst Biol 5(Article number 290)

  • Becker S, Feist A, Mo M, Hannum G, Palsson B, Herrgard M (2007) Quantitative prediction of cellular metabolism with constraint-based models: the COBRA Toolbox. Nat Protoc 2:727–738

    CASPubMed Google Scholar

  • Bergman RN (1997) The minimal model: yesterday, today and tomorrow. In: Bergman RN, Lovejoy JC (eds) The minimal model approach and determination of glucose tolerance. LSU Press, Baton Rouge, pp 3–50

    Google Scholar

  • Bergman RN (2001) The minimal model of glucose regulation: a biography. In: Novotny J, Green M, Boston R (eds) Mathematical modeling in nutrition and health. Kluwer Academic/Plenum, Dordrecht/New York

  • Bertoletti A, Maini MK, Ferrari C (2010) The host–pathogen interaction during HBV infection: immunological controversies. Antivir Ther 15(3):15–24

    CASPubMed Google Scholar

  • Bhalla US, Iyengar R (1999) Emergent properties of networks of biological signaling pathways. Science 283(5400):381–387

    CASPubMed Google Scholar

  • Bhat PJ, Darunte L, Kareenhalli V, Dandekar J, Kumar A (2011) Can metabolic plasticity be a cause for cancer? Warburg–Waddington legacy revisited. Clin Epigenet 2:113–122

    CAS Google Scholar

  • Bogle IDL, Allen R, Sumner T (2010) The role of computer aided process engineering in physiology and clinical medicine. Comput Chem Eng 34(5):763–769

    CAS Google Scholar

  • Botstein D, White RL, Skolnick M, Davis RW (1980) Construction of a genetic linkage map in man using restriction fragment length polymorphisms. Am J Hum Genet 32(3):314–331

    CASPubMed CentralPubMed Google Scholar

  • Brandman O, Ferrell JE Jr, Li R, Meyer T (2005) Interlinked fast and slow positive feedback loops drive reliable cell decisions. Science 310(5747):496–498

    CASPubMed CentralPubMed Google Scholar

  • Butcher EC, Berg EL, Kunkel EJ (2004) Systems biology in drug discovery. Nat Biotechnol 22(10):1253–1259

    CASPubMed Google Scholar

  • Butler D (1999) Computing 2010: from black holes to biology. Nature 402(6761 Suppl):C67–C70

    Google Scholar

  • Chan P, Holford N (2001) Drug treatment effects on disease progression. Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol 41(1):625–659

    CASPubMed Google Scholar

  • Chandra N (2009) Computational systems approach for drug target discovery. Expert Opin Drug Discov 4(12):1221–1236

    CASPubMed Google Scholar

  • Chautard E, Thierry-Mieg N, Ricard-Blum S (2009) Interaction networks: from protein functions to drug discovery. A review. Pathol Biol (Paris) 57(4):324–333

    CAS Google Scholar

  • Chen C-L, Tsai H-W, Wong S–S (2010a) Modeling the physiological glucose-insulin dynamic system on diabetics. J Theor Biol 265(3):314–322

    CASPubMed Google Scholar

  • Chen Q, Wang Z, Wei D (2010b) Progress in the applications of flux analysis of metabolic networks. Chin Sci Bull 55(22):2315–2322

    CAS Google Scholar

  • Chen Y, Zhang W, Gan M, Jiang R (2012) Constructing human phenome-interactome networks for the prioritization of candidate gene. Stat Interface 5:137–148

    Google Scholar

  • Cheng TMK, Gulati S, Agius R, Bates PA (2012) Understanding cancer mechanisms through network dynamics. Briefings Funct Genomics 11(6):543–560

    CAS Google Scholar

  • Chew YH, Shia YL, Lee CT, Majid FAA, Chua LS, Sarmidi MR, Aziz AR (2009) Modeling of glucose regulation and insulin-signaling pathways. Mol Cell Endocrinol 303:13–24

    Google Scholar

  • Cho CR, Labow M, Reinhardt M, van Oostrum J, Peitsch MC (2006) The application of systems biology to drug discovery. Curr Opin Chem Biol 10(4):294–302

    CASPubMed Google Scholar

  • Cho B-K, Charusanti P, Herrgård MJ, Palsson B (2007) Microbial regulatory and metabolic networks. Curr Opin Biotechnol 18(4):360–364

    CASPubMed Google Scholar

  • Cloutier M, Wang E (2011) Dynamic modeling and analysis of cancer cellular network motifs. Integr Biol 3(7):724–732

    CAS Google Scholar

  • Comen E, Morris P, Norton L (2012) Translating mathematical modeling of tumor growth patterns into novel therapeutic approaches for breast cancer. J Mammary Gland Biol Neoplasia 17(3–4):241–249

    PubMed Google Scholar

  • Csete ME, Doyle JC (2002) Reverse engineering of biological complexity. Science 295(5560):1664–1669

    CASPubMed Google Scholar

  • Cuccato G, Gatta GD, di Bernardo D (2009) Systems and synthetic biology: tackling genetic networks and complex diseases. Heredity 102(6):527–532

    CASPubMed Google Scholar

  • Dalla Man C, Rizza RA (2007) Meal simulation model of the glucose–insulin system. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 54:10

    Google Scholar

  • De Gaetano A, Hardy T, Beck B, Abu-Raddad E, Palumbo P, Bue-Valleskey J, Porksen N (2008) Mathematical models of diabetes progression. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab 295(6):E1462–E1479

    PubMed Google Scholar

  • de Graaf AA, Freidig AP, De Roos B, Jamshidi N, Heinemann M, Rullmann JAC, Hall KD, Adiels M, van Ommen B (2009) Nutritional systems biology modeling: from molecular mechanisms to physiology. PLoS Comput Biol 5(11):e1000554

    PubMed CentralPubMed Google Scholar

  • Deisboeck TS, Wang Z, Macklin P, Cristini V (2011) Multiscale cancer modeling. Annu Rev Biomed Eng 13(1):127–155

    CASPubMed Google Scholar

  • del Sol A, Balling R, Hood L, Galas D (2010) Diseases as network perturbations. Curr Opin Biotechnol 21:566–571

    PubMed Google Scholar

  • Duda DG, Munn LL, Jain RK (2013) Can we identify predictive biomarkers for antiangiogenic therapy of cancer using mathematical modeling? J Natl Cancer Inst 105(11):762–765

    PubMed Google Scholar

  • Duffy BC, Zhu L, Decornez H, Kitchen DB (2012) Early phase drug discovery: cheminformatics and computational techniques in identifying lead series. Bioorg Med Chem 20(18):5324–5342

    CASPubMed Google Scholar

  • Dunker AK, Lawson JD, Brown CJ et al (2001) Intrinsically disordered protein. J Mol Graph Model 19:26–59

    CASPubMed Google Scholar

  • Edelman LB, Eddy JA, Price ND (2010) In silico models of cancer. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Syst Biol Med 2(4):438–459

    CASPubMed CentralPubMed Google Scholar

  • Eissing T, Kuepfer L, Becker C, Block M, Coboeken K et al (2011) A computational systems biology software platform for multiscale modeling and simulation: integrating whole-body physiology, disease biology, and molecular reaction networks. Front Physiol 2(4):1–10

    Google Scholar

  • Erler JT, Linding R (2010) Network-based drugs and biomarkers. J Pathol 220(2):290–296

    CASPubMed Google Scholar

  • Ferrell JE (2002) Self-perpetuating states in signal transduction: positive feedback, double-negative feedback and bistability. Curr Opin Cell Biol 14(2):140–148

    CASPubMed Google Scholar

  • Folger O, Jerby L, Frezza C, Gottlieb E, Ruppin E, Shlomi T (2011) Predicting selective drug targets in cancer through metabolic networks. Mol Syst Biol 7(501):1–10

    Google Scholar

  • Ge H, Walhout AJM, Vidal M (2003) Integrating ‘omic’ information: a bridge between genomics and systems biology. Trends Genet 19(10):551–560

    CASPubMed Google Scholar

  • Gehlenborg N, O’Donoghue SI, Baliga NS et al (2010) Visualization of omics data for systems biology. Nat Methods 7(3s):S56–S68

    Google Scholar

  • Ghosh S, Young DL, Gadkar KG, Wennerberg L, Basu K (2007) Towards optimal virtual patients: an online adaptive control approach. Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, 2007. EMBS 2007. In: 29th Annual international conference of the IEEE

  • Giri L, Mutalik V, Venkatesh K (2004) A steady state analysis indicates that negative feedback regulation of PTP1B by Akt elicits bistability in insulin-stimulated GLUT4 translocation. Theor Biol Med Model 1(1):2

    PubMed CentralPubMed Google Scholar

  • Goh K-I, Cusick ME, Valle D, Childs B, Vidal M, Barabasi A-L (2007) The human disease network. PNAS 104(21):8685–8690

    CASPubMed Google Scholar

  • Hageman BR, Trichler DL, Gaile DP (2012) Mathematical and statistical modeling in cancer systems biology. Front Physiol 3(227):1–8

    Google Scholar

  • Hamosh A, Scott AF, Amberger JS, Bocchini CA, McKusick VA (2005) Online Mendelian inheritance in man (OMIM), a knowledgebase of human genes and genetic disorders. Nucleic Acids Res 33(suppl 1):D514–D517

    CASPubMed CentralPubMed Google Scholar

  • Handorf T, Klipp E (2012) Modeling mechanistic biological networks: an advanced Boolean approach. Bioinformatics 28(4):557–563

    CASPubMed Google Scholar

  • Hartwell LH, Hopfield JJ, Leibler S, Murray AW (1999) From molecular to modular cell biology. Nature 402:C47–C52

    Google Scholar

  • Hase T, Tanaka H, Suzuki Y, Nakagawa S, Kitano H (2009) Structure of protein interaction networks and their implications on drug design. PLoS Comput Biol 5(10):e1000550

    PubMed CentralPubMed Google Scholar

  • Heiner M, Gilbert D (2013) BioModel engineering for multiscale systems biology. Prog Biophys Mol Biol 111(2–3):119–128

    PubMed Google Scholar

  • Herrgård MJ, Covert MW, Palsson BØ (2004) Reconstruction of microbial transcriptional regulatory networks. Curr Opin Biotechnol 15(1):70–77

    PubMed Google Scholar

  • Houtman JCD, Barda-Saad M, Samelson LE (2005) Examining multiprotein signaling complexes from all angles. FEBS J 272(21):5426–5435

    CASPubMed CentralPubMed Google Scholar

  • Hunter P, Smith N, Fernandez J, Tawhai M (2005) Integration from proteins to organs: the IUPS physiome project. Mech Ageing Dev 126(1):187–192

    CASPubMed Google Scholar

  • Hunter P, Chapman T, Coveney PV et al (2013) A vision and strategy for the virtual physiological human: 2012 update. Interface Focus 3(2):2042–8901

    Google Scholar

  • Imms R, Warburton C, Summers R (2011) Engineering biology: model conceptualisation and realisation. Meas Control 44(6):175–179

    Google Scholar

  • Janes KA, Yaffe MB (2006) Data-driven modelling of signal-transduction networks. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 7(11):820–828

    CASPubMed Google Scholar

  • Jordán F, Nguyen TP, Liu W (2012) Studying protein–protein interaction networks: a systems view on diseases. Briefings Funct Genomics 11(6):497–504

    Google Scholar

  • Jørgensen C, Linding R (2008) Directional and quantitative phosphorylation networks. Briefings Funct Genomics Proteomics 7(1):17–26

    Google Scholar

  • Kahraman A, Avramov A, Nashev LG et al (2005) PhenomicDB: a multi-species genotype/phenotype database for comparative phenomics. Bioinformatics 21:418–420

    CASPubMed Google Scholar

  • Kann MG (2007) Protein interactions and disease: computational approaches to uncover the etiology of diseases. Briefings Bioinform 8(5):333–346

    CAS Google Scholar

  • Karp PD, Ouzounis CA, Moore-Kochlacs C, Goldovsky L et al (2005) Expansion of the BioCyc collection of pathway/genome databases to 160 genomes. Nucleic Acids Res 33(19):6083–6089

    CASPubMed CentralPubMed Google Scholar

  • Kholodenko BN (2006) Cell-signalling dynamics in time and space. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 7(3):165–176

    CASPubMed CentralPubMed Google Scholar

  • Kholodenko BN, Kiyatkin A, Bruggeman F, Sontag E, Westerhoff HV, Hoek JB (2002) Untangling the wires: a strategy to trace functional interactions in signaling and gene networks. Proc Natl Acad Sci 99(20):12841–12846

    Google Scholar

  • Kholodenko B, Yaffe MB, Kolch W (2012) Computational approaches for analyzing information flow in biological networks. Sci Signal 5(220):re1

    PubMed Google Scholar

  • Kim J, Saidel G, Cabrera M (2007) Multi-scale computational model of fuel homeostasis during exercise: effect of hormonal control. Ann Biomed Eng 35(1):69–90

    PubMed Google Scholar

  • Kim TY, Kim HU, Lee SY (2010) Data integration and analysis of biological networks. Curr Opin Biotechnol 21(1):78–84

    CASPubMed Google Scholar

  • Kim HU, Sohn SB, Lee SY (2012) Metabolic network modeling and simulation for drug targeting and discovery. Biotechnol J 7(3):330–342

    CASPubMed Google Scholar

  • Kirouac DC, Ito C, Csaszar E, Roch A, Yu M, Sykes EA, Bader GD, Zandstra PW (2010) Dynamic interaction networks in a hierarchically organized tissue. Mol Syst Biol 6(417):1–17

    Google Scholar

  • Kitano H (2002a) Computational systems biology. Nature 420(6912):206–210

    Google Scholar

  • Kitano H (2002b) Systems biology: A brief overview. Science 295(5560):1662–1664

    Google Scholar

  • Kitano H (2007) Towards a theory of biological robustness. Mol Syst Biol 3(137):1–7

    Google Scholar

  • Kitano H, Oda K, Kimura T, Matsuoka Y, Csete M, Doyle J, Muramatsu M (2004) Metabolic syndrome and robustness tradeoffs. Diabetes 53(suppl 3):S6–S15

    CASPubMed Google Scholar

  • Klinke D (2008) Integrating epidemiological data into a mechanistic model of type 2 diabetes: validating the prevalence of virtual patients. Ann Biomed Eng 36(2):321–334

    PubMed Google Scholar

  • Klipp E, Wade RC, Kummer U (2010) Biochemical network-based drug-target prediction. Curr Opin Biotechnol 21(4):511–516

    CASPubMed Google Scholar

  • Kolodkin A, Boogerd FC, Plant N, Bruggeman FJ, Goncharuk V et al (2012) Emergence of the silicon human and network targeting drugs. Eur J Pharm Sci 46(4):190–197

    CASPubMed Google Scholar

  • Koschorreck M, Conzelmann H, Ebert S, Ederer M, Gilles E (2007) Reduced modeling of signal transduction—a modular approach. BMC Bioinformatics 8(1):336

    PubMed CentralPubMed Google Scholar

  • Koshiyama H, Ogawa Y, Tanaka K, Tanaka I (2010) Integrated network systems and evolutionary developmental endocrinology. Med Hypotheses 74(1):132–138

    CASPubMed Google Scholar

  • Koster ES, Rodin AS, Raaijmakers JA, Maitland-vander Zee A-H (2009) Systems biology in pharmacogenomic research: the way to personalized prescribing? Pharmacogenomics 10(6):971–981

    PubMed Google Scholar

  • Koyutürk M (2010) Algorithmic and analytical methods in network biology. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Syst Biol Med 2(3):277–292

    PubMed CentralPubMed Google Scholar

  • Kumar N, Hendriks BS, Janes KA, de Graaf D, Lauffenburger DA (2006) Applying computational modeling to drug discovery and development. Drug Discovery Today 11(17–18):806–811

    CASPubMed Google Scholar

  • Lage K, Karlberg EO, Storling ZM, Olason PI, Pedersen AG, Rigina O, Hinsby AM, Tumer Z, Pociot F, Tommerup N, Moreau Y, Brunak S (2007) A human phenome-interactome network of protein complexes implicated in genetic disorders. Nat Biotechnol 25(3):309–316

    CASPubMed Google Scholar

  • Langley SR, Dwyer J, Drozdov I, Yin X, Mayr M (2013) Proteomics: from single molecules to biological pathways. Cardiovasc Res 97(4):612–622

    CASPubMed Google Scholar

  • Le Novère N, Bornstein B, Broicher A, Courtot M, Donizelli M, Dharuri H, Li L, Sauro H, Schilstra M, Shapiro B, Snoep JL, Hucka M (2006) BioModels Database: a free, centralized database of curated, published, quantitative kinetic models of biochemical and cellular systems. Nucleic Acids Res 34(Database issue):D689–D691

  • Lesko L, Atkinson A (2001) Use of biomarkers and surrogate endpoints in drug development and regulatory decision making: criteria, validation, strategies. Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol 41(1):347–366

    CASPubMed Google Scholar

  • Liu B, Thagrajan PS (2012) Modeling and analysis of biopathways dynamics. J Bioinform Comput Biol 10(04):1231001

    PubMed Google Scholar

  • Liu W, Hsin CC, Tang F (2009) A molecular mathematical model of glucose mobilization and uptake. Math Biosci 221:121–129

    Google Scholar

  • Maayan A (2011) Introduction to network analysis in systems biology. Sci Signal 4(190):tr5, 1–11

    Google Scholar

  • Macé G, Bogliolo M, Guervilly J-H, Dugas du Villard JA, Rosselli F (2005) 3R coordination by Fanconi anemia proteins. Biochimie 87(7):647–658

    PubMed Google Scholar

  • Makroglou A, Li J, Kuang Y (2006) Mathematical models and software tools for the glucose-insulin regulatory system and diabetes: an overview. Appl Numer Math 56:559–573

    Google Scholar

  • Mardinoglu A, Nielsen J (2012) Systems medicine and metabolic modelling. J Intern Med 271(2):142–154

    CASPubMed Google Scholar

  • Mayer B (1999) Protein–protein interactions in signaling cascades. Mol Biotechnol 13(3):201–213

    CASPubMed Google Scholar

  • Meeting H (2007) Computer modeling of diabetes and its complications. Diabetes Care 30(6):1638–1646

    Google Scholar

  • Menolascina F, Siciliano V, di Bernardo D (2012) Engineering and control of biological systems: a new way to tackle complex diseases. FEBS Lett 586(15):2122–2128

    CASPubMed Google Scholar

  • 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

    CASPubMed Google Scholar

  • Miyatsuka H, Matsuoka T, Kaneto H (2008) Transcription factors as therapeutic targets for diabetes. Expert Opin Ther Targets 12(11):1431–1442

    CASPubMed Google Scholar

  • Mizushima T (2012) Identification of molecular mechanism for actions of existing medicines and its application for drug development. Yakugaku Zasshi 132(6):713–720

    CASPubMed Google Scholar

  • Moller DE (2001) New drug targets for type 2 diabetes and the metabolic syndrome. Nature 414(6865):821–827

    CASPubMed Google Scholar

  • Moreno-Sánchez R, Saavedra E, Rodríguez-Enríquez S, Olín-Sandoval V (2008) Metabolic control analysis: a tool for designing strategies to manipulate metabolic pathways. J Biomed Biotechnol (Article ID 597913):30

  • Neduva V, Russell RB (2006) Peptides mediating interaction networks: new leads at last. Curr Opin Biotechnol 17(5):465–471

    CASPubMed Google Scholar

  • Nielsen J (2012) Translational and systems medicine. J Intern Med 271(2):108–110

    CASPubMed Google Scholar

  • Oberhardt M, Palsson B, Papin J (2009) Applications of genome-scale metabolic reconstructions. Mol Syst Biol 5(320):1–15

    Google Scholar

  • Ogata H, Goto S, Sato K, Fujibuchi W, Bono H, Kanehisa M (1999) KEGG: Kyoto encyclopedia of genes and genomes. Nucleic Acids Res 27(1):29–34

    CASPubMed CentralPubMed Google Scholar

  • Orth J, Thiele I, Palsson B (2010) What is flux balance analysis? Nat Biotechnol 28:245–248

    CASPubMed CentralPubMed Google Scholar

  • Papin JA, Hunter T, Palsson BO, Subramaniam S (2005) Reconstruction of cellular signalling networks and analysis of their properties. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 6(2):99–111

    CASPubMed Google Scholar

  • Park J, Lee D-S, Christakis N, Barabasi A-L (2009) The impact of cellular networks on disease comorbidity. Mol Syst Biol 5:262

    PubMed CentralPubMed Google Scholar

  • Pattaranit R, van den Berg HA (2008) Mathematical models of energy homeostasis. J R Soc Interface 5(27):1119–1135

    PubMed CentralPubMed Google Scholar

  • Perez-Iratxeta C, Bork P, Andrade MA (2002) Association of genes to genetically inherited diseases using data mining. Nat Genet 31(3):316–319

    CASPubMed Google Scholar

  • Pfau T, Christian N, Ebenhöh O (2011) Systems approaches to modelling pathways and networks. Briefings Funct Genomics 10(5):266–279

    Google Scholar

  • Post TM, Freijer JI, DeJongh J, Danhof M (2005) Disease system analysis: basic disease progression models in degenerative disease. Pharm Res 22(7):1038–1049

    CASPubMed Google Scholar

  • Przytycka T, Kim Y-A (2010) Network integration meets network dynamics. BMC Biol 8(1):48

    PubMed CentralPubMed Google Scholar

  • Pujol A, Farre J, Aloy P (2010) Unveiling the role of network and systems biology in drug discovery. Trends Pharmacol Sci 31(3):115–123

    Google Scholar

  • Qi Y, Ge H (2006) Modularity and dynamics of cellular networks. PLoS Comput Biol 2(12):e174

    PubMed CentralPubMed Google Scholar

  • Rao CV, Arkin AP (2001) Control motifs for intracellular regulatory networks. Annu Rev Biomed Eng 3(1):391–419

    CASPubMed Google Scholar

  • Rees SE, Carson ER, Feng DD, Andreassen S (2011) Modelling and control in biomedical systems. Comput Methods Programs Biomed 104(2):27–28

    CASPubMed Google Scholar

  • Renner S, Popov M, Schuffenhauer A, Roth H-J, Breitenstein W, Marzinzik A, Lewis I, Krastel P, Nigsch F, Jenkins J, Jacoby E (2011) Recent trends and observations in the design of high-quality screening collections. Future Med Chem 3(6):751–766

    CASPubMed Google Scholar

  • Resendis-Antonio O, Checa A, Encarnación S (2010) Modeling core metabolism in cancer cells: surveying the topology underlying the Warburg effect. PLoS ONE 5(8):e12383

    PubMed CentralPubMed Google Scholar

  • Rolfsson O, Palsson B, Thiele I (2011) The human metabolic reconstruction Recon 1 directs hypotheses of novel human metabolic functions. BMC Syst Biol 5(1):155

    PubMed CentralPubMed Google Scholar

  • Roy A, Parker RS (2006) Dynamic modeling of free fatty acid, glucose, and insulin: an extended “minimal model”. Diabetes Technol Ther 8:617–626

    CASPubMed Google Scholar

  • Safran M, Chalifa-Caspi V, Shmueli O et al (2003) Human gene-centric databases at the Weizmann Institute of Science: GeneCards, UDB, CroW 21 and HORDE. Nucleic Acids Res 31(1):142–146

    CASPubMed CentralPubMed Google Scholar

  • Sam L, Liu Y, Jianrong L et al (2007) Discovery of protein interaction networks shared by diseases. Pac Symp Biocomput 12:76–87

    Google Scholar

  • Sangar V, Eddy JA, Simeonidis E, Price N (2012) Mechanistic modeling of aberrant energy metabolism in human disease. Front Physiol 3(404):1–10

    Google Scholar

  • Schenone M, Dančík V, Wagner BK, Clemons PA (2013), Target identification and mechanism of action in chemical biology and drug discovery. Nat Chem Biol 9:232–240

    Google Scholar

  • Schleich K, Lavrik I (2013) Mathematical modeling of apoptosis. Cell Commun Signal 11(1):44

    PubMed CentralPubMed Google Scholar

  • Scriver CR, Waters PJ (1999) Monogenic traits are not simple: lessons from phenylketonuria. Trends Genet 15:267–272

    CASPubMed Google Scholar

  • Sedaghat AR, Sherman A, Quon MJ (2002) A mathematical model of metabolic insulin signaling pathways. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab 283(5):E1084–E1101

    Google Scholar

  • Sesti G (2006) Pathophysiology of insulin resistance. Best Pract Res Clin Endocrinol Metab 20(4):665–679

    Google Scholar

  • Shahrezaei V, Swain PS (2008) The stochastic nature of biochemical networks. Curr Opin Biotechnol 19(4):369–374

    CASPubMed Google Scholar

  • Sharan TI (2008) Protein networks in disease. Genome Res 18:644–652

    PubMed Google Scholar

  • Smith C (2003) Drug target validation: hitting the target. Nature 422(6929):341–347

    Google Scholar

  • Smith JMD, Maas JA, Garnsworthy PC, Owen MR, Coombes S, Pillay TS, Barrett DA, Symonds ME (2009) Mathematical modeling of glucose homeostasis and its relationship with energy balance and body fat. Obesity 17(4):632–639

    PubMed Google Scholar

  • Sriram G, Liao JC, Dipple KM (2005) A comprehensive insulin signaling model for predicting phenotypes using expression data. Abstract, AICHE Annual meeting 2005

  • Stelling J, Sauer U, Szallasi Z, Doyle Iii FJ, Doyle J (2004) Robustness of cellular functions. Cell 118(6):675–685

    CASPubMed Google Scholar

  • Tegnér JN, Compte A, Auffray C et al (2009) Computational disease modeling—fact or fiction? BMC Syst Biol 3(56):1–3

    Google Scholar

  • Terentiev A, Moldogazieva N, Shaitan K (2009) Dynamic proteomics in modeling of the living cell. Protein–protein interactions. Biochem (Moscow) 74(13):1586–1607

    CAS Google Scholar

  • Tiffin N, Adie E, Turner F, Brunner HG, van Driel MA, Oti M, Lopez-Bigas N, Ouzounis C, Perez-Iratxeta C, Andrade-Navarro MA, Adeyemo A, Patti ME, Semple CAM, Hide W (1980) Computational disease gene identification: a concert of methods prioritizes type 2 diabetes and obesity candidate genes. Nucleic Acids Res 34(10):3067–3081

    Google Scholar

  • Topp B, Promislow K, Devries G, Miuraa RM, Finegood DT (2000) A model of b-cell mass, insulin, and glucose kinetics: pathways to diabetes. J Theor Biol 206:605–619

    CASPubMed Google Scholar

  • Tripathy D, Chavez AO (2010) Defects in insulin secretion and action in the pathogenesis of type 2 diabetes mellitus. Curr Diab Rep 10:184–191

    Google Scholar

  • Tyson JJ, Chen K, Novak B (2001) Network dynamics and cell physiology. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 2(12):908–916

    CASPubMed Google Scholar

  • van Driel MA, Cuelenaere K, Kemmeren PPCW, Leunissen JAM, Brunner HG, Vriend G (2005) GeneSeeker: extraction and integration of human disease-related information from web-based genetic databases. Nucleic Acids Res 33(suppl 2):W758–W761

    PubMed CentralPubMed Google Scholar

  • Verkhedkar KD, Raman K, Chandra NR, Vishveshwara S (2007) Metabolome based reaction graphs of M. tuberculosis and M. leprae: a comparative network analysis. PLoS ONE 2(9):e881

    PubMed CentralPubMed Google Scholar

  • Vicini P (2008) Kinetic models at the intersection of biology, engineering and medicine. Drug Discov Today Dis Model 5(4):271–272

    Google Scholar

  • Vicini P, Caumo A, Cobelli C (1999) Glucose effectiveness and insulin sensitivity from the minimal models: consequences of undermodeling assessed by Monte Carlo simulation. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 46(2):130–137

    CASPubMed Google Scholar

  • Walpole J, Papin JA, Peirce SM (2013) Multiscale computational models of complex biological systems. Annu Rev Biomed Eng 15(1):137–154

    CASPubMed Google Scholar

  • Wang E (2010) A roadmap of cancer systems biology. Nature proceedings. http://hdl.handle.net/10101/npre.2010.4322.2

  • Wang E, Lenferink A, O’Connor-McCourt M (2007) Genetic studies of diseases. Cell Mol Life Sci 64(14):1752–1762

    CASPubMed Google Scholar

  • Wang J, Zhang L, Jing C, Ye G, Wu H, Miao H, Wu Y, Zhou X (2013) Multi-scale agent-based modeling on melanoma and its related angiogenesis analysis. Theor Biol Med Model 10(1):41

    CASPubMed CentralPubMed Google Scholar

  • Wells JA, McClendon CL (2007) Reaching for high-hanging fruit in drug discovery at protein–protein interfaces. Nature 450(7172):1001–1009

    CASPubMed Google Scholar

  • Werner B, Dingli D, Traulsen A (2013) A deterministic model for the occurrence and dynamics of multiple mutations in hierarchically organized tissues. J R Soc Interface 10(85):1–10

    Google Scholar

  • Wilkinson DJ (2009) Stochastic modelling for quantitative description of heterogeneous biological systems. Nat Rev Genet 10(2):122–133

    CASPubMed Google Scholar

  • Winslow RL, Trayanova N, Geman D, Miller MI (2012) Computational medicine: translating models to clinical care. Sci Transl Med 4(158):158rv111

    Google Scholar

  • Wolf DM, Arkin AP (2003) Motifs, modules and games in bacteria. Curr Opin Microbiol 6(2):125–134

    CASPubMed Google Scholar

  • Yildirim MA, Goh K, Cusick ME, Cusick ME, Barabási A-L, Vidal M (2007) Drug-target network. Nat Biotechnol 25(10):1119–1126

    Google Scholar

  • Zanzoni A, Soler-López M, Aloy P (2009) A network medicine approach to human disease. FEBS Lett 583:1759–1765

    Google Scholar

  • Zelezniak A, Pers T, Soares S, Patti M, Patil K (2010) Metabolic network topology reveals transcriptional regulatory signatures of type 2 diabetes. PLoS Comput Biol 6:e1000729

    PubMed CentralPubMed Google Scholar

  • Zheng Y, Moore H, Piryatinska A, Solis T, Sweet-Cordero EA (2013) Mathematical modeling of tumor cell proliferation kinetics and label retention in a mouse model of lung cancer. Cancer Res 73(12):3525–3533

    CASPubMed Google Scholar

  • Zhu X, Gerstein M, Snyder M (2007) Getting connected: analysis and principles of biological networks. Genes Dev 21:1010–1024

    CASPubMed Google Scholar

  • Zhu M, Gao L, Li X, Liu Z, Xu C, Yan Y, Walker E et al (2009) The analysis of the drug-targets based on the topological properties in the human protein–protein interaction network. J Drug Target 17(7):524–532

    CASPubMed Google Scholar

  • Zinovyev A, Fourquet S, Tournier L, Calzone L, Barillot E (2012) Cell death and life in cancer: mathematical modeling of cell fate decisions. Adv Expt Med Biol 736:261–274

  • Sours: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11693-013-9125-3

    Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Systems Biology and Medicine

    Download Product Flyer

    Download Product Flyer

    Download Product Flyer is to download PDF in new tab. This is a dummy description. Download Product Flyer is to download PDF in new tab. This is a dummy description. Download Product Flyer is to download PDF in new tab. This is a dummy description. Download Product Flyer is to download PDF in new tab. This is a dummy description.

    Description

    The award-winning WIREs (Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews) series combines some of the most powerful features of encyclopedic reference works and review journals in an innovative online format. They are designed to promote a cross-disciplinary research ethos while maintaining the highest scientific and presentational standards, but should be viewed first and foremost as evolving online databases of cutting-edge reviews.

    WIREs Systems Biology and Medicine:

    • An important new forum to promote cross-disciplinary discussion of systems concepts in the life sciences and medicine
    • An authoritative, encyclopedic resource addressing key topics from the perspectives of medicine, biology, physiology, computational biology and modeling, and bioengineering
    • Free or low cost access in developing countries through Research4Life
    • Indexed by MEDLINE/PubMed, TRSI (formerly ISI), CAS, and Scopus
    • Offers FREE downloadable PowerPoint presentations of figures for non-profit, educational use

    For more information, please go to wires.wiley.com/sysbio.

    Sours: https://www.wiley.com/en-us/Wiley+Interdisciplinary+Reviews%3A+Systems+Biology+and+Medicine-p-j00003456

    Biology reviews systems

    " "To your health. ", she said, now if I see where, by chance. A boy or a girl studying myself, I say: "To health. " My aunt was so lost in memories that she didn't even feel that I was pouring into her palm, or so it was her intention.

    Systems Biology: Where Computer Science, Engineering and Biology Meet

    He simply described what exactly he would need from Olya. Rather, he described the part that could be described in advance. '' So, girl, '' he began in a mentoring tone, tomorrow, as usual, you will go to work and work as long as you are supposed to. By the end of the working day, you have passed recently.

    Similar news:

    Not like Lyudka. A sleek, well-groomed Muscovite smelled pleasantly of perfume and an excited woman. Noticing which way Lyudka's thoughts were turning, he was delighted. Tolyan, if Lyudka agrees, it will be possible to return the favor.



    1666 1667 1668 1669 1670