1: \documentclass[11pt]{article}

2: 

3: \usepackage{epsf,latexsym,amssymb,amsmath,amsthm,graphics,graphicx}

4: \usepackage[mathscr]{eucal}

5: 

6: \usepackage{times}

7: 

8: \setlength{\topmargin}{-0.5in}

9: \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-.0 in}

10: \setlength{\textheight}{9.25in}

11: \setlength{\textwidth}{6.5in}

12: \setlength{\parskip}{0pt plus 1pt minus 1pt}

13: \setlength{\parsep}{1pt plus 1pt minus 1pt}

14: \setlength{\itemsep}{-1pt plus 1pt  minus 1pt}

15: \setlength{\floatsep}{2pt plus 1pt  minus 1pt}

16: \setlength{\textfloatsep}{5pt plus 1pt  minus 1pt}

17: \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.1}

18: 

19: \def\ie{{\em i.e.}, }

20: \pagestyle{plain}

21: 

22: \newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}

23: \newtheorem{itlemma}{Lemma}[section]

24: %causes the Lemmas to be subnumbered according to each section

25: \newtheorem{itproposition}[itlemma]{Proposition}

26: \newtheorem{itcorollary}[itlemma]{Corollary}

27: \newtheorem{itremark}[itlemma]{Remark}

28: \newtheorem{itremarks}[itlemma]{Remarks}

29: \newtheorem{itdefinition}[itlemma]{Definition}

30: \newtheorem{itexample}[itlemma]{Example}

31: \newtheorem{factenv}{Fact}

32: 

33: \newenvironment{corollary}{\begin{itcorollary}\rm}{\end{itcorollary}} %no-italics

34: \newenvironment{definition}{\begin{itdefinition}\rm}{\end{itdefinition}}

35: \newenvironment{example}{\begin{itexample}\rm}{\end{itexample}}

36: \newenvironment{lemma}{\begin{itlemma}\rm}{\end{itlemma}} %no-italics

37: \newenvironment{proposition}{\begin{itproposition}\rm}{\end{itproposition}}

38: \newenvironment{remark}{\begin{itremark}\rm}{\end{itremark}} %no-italics

39: \newenvironment{remarks}{\begin{itremarks} \rm}{\end{itremarks}}

40: \newenvironment{theo}{\begin{theorem} \rm}{\end{theorem}} %no-italics

41: \newenvironment{fact1}{\begin{factenv}\rm}{\end{factenv}}

42: 

43: 

44: \newcommand{\bc}[1]{\begin{corollary}\label{#1}}

45: \newcommand{\ec}{\end{corollary}}

46: \newcommand{\bd}[1]{\begin{definition}\label{#1}}

47: \newcommand{\ed}{\end{definition}}

48: \newcommand{\beqn}[1]{\begin{eqnarray}\label{#1}}

49: \newcommand{\eeqn}{\end{eqnarray}}

50: \newcommand{\beq}{\begin{eqnarray*}}

51: \newcommand{\eeq}{\end{eqnarray*}}

52: \newcommand{\bex}[1]{\begin{example}\label{#1}}

53: \newcommand{\eex}{\end{example}}

54: \newcommand{\bit}{\begin{itemize}}

55: \newcommand{\eit}{\end{itemize}}

56: \newcommand{\benu}{\begin{enumerate}}

57: \newcommand{\eenu}{\end{enumerate}}

58: \newcommand{\bl}[1]{\begin{lemma}\label{#1}}

59: \newcommand{\el}{\end{lemma}}

60: \newcommand{\bpr}{\begin{proof}}

61: \newcommand{\epr}{\end{proof}}

62: \newcommand{\bp}[1]{\begin{proposition}\label{#1}}

63: \newcommand{\ep}{\end{proposition}}

64: 

65: \newcommand{\rf}[1]{~(\ref{#1})}

66: \newcommand{\br}[1]{\begin{remark}\label{#1}}

67: \newcommand{\er}{\end{remark}}

68: \newcommand{\brs}[1]{\begin{remarks}\label{#1}}

69: \newcommand{\ers}{\end{remarks}}

70: \newcommand{\bt}[1]{\begin{theo}\label{#1}}

71: \newcommand{\et}{\end{theo}}

72: \newcommand{\bfc}[1]{\begin{fact1}\label{#1}}

73: \newcommand{\efc}{\end{fact1}}

74: 

75: \newcommand{\comment}[1]{}

76: 

77: \newcommand{\halmos}{\rule{1ex}{1.4ex}}

78: \newcommand{\abs}[1]{|{#1}|}

79: \newcommand{\dnorm}[1]{\|{#1}\|}

80: \newcommand{\eps}{\varepsilon}

81: 

82: \newcommand{\I}{{\mathcal I}}

83: \newcommand{\C}{{\mathbb C}}

84: \newcommand{\N}{{\mathbb N}}  %ams bold

85: \newcommand{\R}{{\mathbb R}}  %ams bold

86: 

87: \newcommand{\M}{{\mathcal M}}

88: \newcommand{\Nd}{{\mathcal N}}

89: \renewcommand{\S}{{\mathcal S}}

90: \newcommand{\W}{{\mathcal W}}

91: \newcommand{\U}{{\mathcal U}}

92: \newcommand{\X}{{\mathcal X}}

93: 

94: \newcommand{\tL}{\mbox{\tiny $L$}}

95: \newcommand{\Prot}{\mbox{\it Prot}}

96: \newcommand{\mRNA}{\mbox{\it mRNA}}

97: \newcommand{\tProt}{\mbox{{\tiny\it Prot}}}

98: \newcommand{\tmRNA}{\mbox{{\tiny\it mRNA}}}

99: 

100: \newcommand{\titleref}[1]{#1}

101: \newcommand{\pr}[1]{#1}

102: \newcommand{\nr}[1]{#1}

103: \newcommand{\ea}{et al.}

104: 

105: 

106: 

107: \begin{document}

108: 

109: 

110: \title{Robustness and fragility of Boolean models\\

111:  for genetic regulatory networks}

112: 

113: %%Or, to give a different title in the longer version, try:

114: %%\title{Asynchronous updates uncover robustness\\

115: %% in Boolean genetic regulatory networks} 

116: 

117: \author{Madalena Chaves$^{1\,*}$, R\'eka Albert$^{2}$ \& Eduardo D.\ Sontag$^{1}$}

118: 

119: \date{}

120: 

121: 

122: \maketitle

123: 

124: \begin{center}

125: {\small

126: 

127: $^{1}$ Department of Mathematics and BioMaPS Institute for Quantitative Biology, \\

128: Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ 08854 

129: 

130: $^{2}$ Department of Physics and Huck Institutes for the Life Sciences, \\

131: Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802.

132: 

133: $^*$ Corresponding author, madalena@math.rutgers.edu

134: }

135: \end{center}

136: 

137: \begin{abstract}

138: Interactions between genes and gene products give rise to complex circuits

139: that enable cells to process information and respond to external signals. Theoretical

140: studies often describe these interactions using continuous, stochastic, or 

141: logical approaches. We propose a new modeling framework for gene regulatory networks,

142: that combines the intuitive appeal of a qualitative description of gene

143: states with a high flexibility in incorporating stochasticity in the duration 

144: of cellular processes. 

145: We apply our methods to the regulatory network of the segment polarity

146: genes, thus gaining novel insights into the development of gene expression patterns.  

147: For example, we show that very short synthesis and decay times can perturb the

148: wild type pattern. On the other hand, separation of timescales between pre- and

149: posttranslational processes and a minimal prepattern ensure convergence

150: to the wild type expression pattern regardless of fluctuations.

151: \end{abstract}

152: 

153: \centerline{

154: {\it Keywords}: Gene regulatory networks; segment polarity genes; Boolean models.

155: }

156: 

157: 

158: 

159: \section{Introduction}

160: 

161: Understanding how genetic information is translated into proteins to produce

162: various cell types remains a major challenge in contemporary

163: biology~\cite{w98}. Gene products often regulate the synthesis of mRNAs and

164: proteins, forming complex networks of regulatory interactions. 

165: Concurrently with experimental progress in gene control networks~\cite{d02}, 

166: several alternative modeling frameworks have been proposed. 

167: In the continuous-state approach, the concentrations of cellular components are

168: assumed to be continuous functions of time, governed by differential equations

169: with mass-action (or more general)

170: kinetics~\cite{rs95,dmmo00,grs01}. Stochastic models address the deviations

171: from population homogeneity by transforming reaction rates into probabilities

172: and concentrations into numbers of molecules~\cite{rwa02}. Finally, in the

173: discrete approach, each component is assumed to have a small number of

174: qualitative states, and the regulatory interactions are described by logical

175: functions~\cite{mta99,st01,ybd01,kpst03,gt03,b97,ao03}.

176: 

177: The kinetic details of protein-protein or protein-DNA interactions are rarely known, but there 

178: is increasing evidence that the input-output curves of regulatory relationships

179: are strongly sigmoidal and can be well approximated by step functions~\cite{ybd01,t73}. Moreover,

180: both models and experiments suggest that regulatory networks are remarkably robust, that is, 

181: they maintain their function even when faced with fluctuations

182: in components and reaction rates~\cite{dmmo00,asml99,eb02,cd02,cw04}. 

183: These observations lend support to the assumption of discrete states for genetic network 

184: components and of combinatorial rules for the effects of transcription factors~\cite{gk73,jg04}.

185: The extreme of discretization, Boolean models, consider only two states (expressed or not), 

186: closely mimicking the 

187: inference methods used in genetics~\cite{kpst03,t73,k93}. It is straightforward to study the effect 

188: of knock-out mutations or changes in initial conditions in this

189: framework, and the agreement between a real system and a Boolean model of it is a strong 

190: indication of the robustness of the system to changes in kinetic details~\cite{ao03}.

191:  

192: In discrete models the decision whether a network node (component) will be affected by a synthesis 

193: or decay process is determined by the state of effector nodes

194: (nodes that interact with it). Typical time-dependent Boolean models use synchronous updating 

195: rules~\cite{kpst03,ao03,b97,k93}, assuming that the time scales of the processes taking place in 

196: the system are similar.  In reality the timescales of transcription, translation, and degradation

197: can vary widely from gene to gene and can be anywhere from minutes to hours. Logical models following the formalism

198: introduced by Ren\'e Thomas~\cite{t73} allow asynchronism by associating two variables

199: to each gene: a state variable describing the level of its protein, 

200: and an image variable that is the output of the logical rule whose inputs are the state

201: variables of effector nodes. Whether the future state variable of a gene equals the

202: image or current state variable depends on the update order and, in the absence 

203: of temporal information, the Thomas formalism focuses

204: on determining the steady states, where the state and image variables 

205: coincide~\cite{mta99,st01,gt03,bcrg04}. The effect of asynchronous updates on the dynamics

206: of the system, however, has not been explored yet. 

207: 

208: In this paper, we present a methodology for testing the robustness of Boolean models with

209: respect to stochasticity in the order of updates. 

210: Through this, we are also probing the system itself: will individual variations

211: lead to unexpected gene expression patterns?

212: In the asynchronous method, the synthesis/decay decision is made at different time-points for each node, 

213: allowing individual variability in each process' duration, but more importantly, it allows for

214: decision reversal if the dynamics of effector nodes changes. 

215: It becomes possible to reproduce, e.g., the overturning of mRNA decay when its transcriptional

216: activator is synthesized, a process that synchronous update cannot capture. Thus,

217: replacing synchronous with asynchronous updates is not merely a technical detail, but rather a fundamental paradigm

218: shift from pointwise in time to potentially continuous communication between nodes.

219: Indeed, the effective synthesis or decay time for a certain node are determined by the time interval between 

220: the latest update of its effector nodes and its current update time, and can be any positive fraction

221: of the unit time interval. 

222: We propose three algorithms, with varying freedom in the relative duration of cellular processes, and find that 

223: very short transcription or decay times have the potential to derail the wild type development process.

224: 

225: The steady states of a Boolean model will remain the same regardless of the mechanism of 

226: update, but its dynamical behavior can be drastically

227: altered due to the stochastic nature of the updates; for instance, the same initial state may

228: lead to different steady states or limit cycles. Since the duration of synthesis and decay

229: processes is not known, we randomly explore the space of all possible timescales and update

230: orders, and derive the probability of different outcomes. Our methods offer a systematic way of 

231: exploring generic behavior of gene regulatory networks and comparing it to experimentally observed outcomes. 

232: To present a concrete example, we generalize a previously introduced Boolean model of the {\it Drosophila} 

233: segment polarity genes~\cite{ao03}. This model reproduces the wild type steady state pattern

234: of the segment polarity genes as well as the gene patterns of mutants, but its dynamic behavior is not directly

235: comparable to that of the real system. Here we show that asynchronous update leads to a much more realistic

236: model that gives further insights into the robustness of the gene regulatory network.

237: 

238: 

239: 

240: 

241: \section{The segment polarity gene network in {\it Drosophila}}

242: 

243: 

244: \begin{figure}

245: \centerline{

246: \scalebox{0.5}[0.5]{\includegraphics{fig1.ps} }

247: }

248: \caption{The network of interactions between the segment polarity 

249: genes. The grey background layers illustrate two neighboring cells,

250: indicating that some interactions in this network are inter-cellular.

251: The shape of the nodes indicates whether the corresponding

252: substances are mRNAs (ellipses) or proteins (rectangles). The edges of the 

253: network signify either biochemical 

254: reactions (e.g. translation,protein interactions) or 

255: regulatory interactions (e.g. transcriptional activation).

256: The edges are classified as activating ($\rightarrow$)

257: or inhibiting ($\dashv$ ). Figure adapted from \cite{ao03}.}

258: \label{fig-network}

259: \end{figure}

260: 

261:  

262: The {\it Drosophila melanogaster} segment polarity genes represent the last step in the 

263: hierarchical cascade of gene families initiating the segmented body of the fruit 

264: fly. While the preceding genes act transiently, 

265: the segment polarity genes are expressed throughout the life of the fly, 

266: and their periodic spatial pattern 

267: is maintained for at least $3$ hours of embryonic development~\cite{w98}. The regulatory roles

268: of the previously expressed genes such as the pair-rule genes {\it fushi tarazu, runt, even-skipped}

269: are incorporated in the prepattern (initial state) of the segment polarity genes.

270: The stable maintenance of the segment polarity gene expression is due to the 

271: interactions between these genes (see Figure \ref{fig-network}), and it is a crucial requirement in 

272: the development and stability of the parasegmental furrows. The best characterized segment 

273: polarity genes include {\it engrailed} ($en$), {\it wingless} ($wg$), {\it hedgehog} ($hh$), 

274: {\it patched} ($ptc$), {\it cubitus interruptus} ($ci$) and 

275: {\it sloppy paired} ($slp$), encoding for diverse proteins including 

276: transcription factors as well as secreted 

277: and receptor proteins. 

278: 

279: 

280: 

281: The pair-rule gene {\it sloppy paired} ($slp$) is activated before

282: the segment polarity genes and expressed constitutively thereafter

283:  \cite{gpg92,cgg94}. {\it slp} encodes two

284: forkhead domain transcription factors with similar functions that

285: activate $wg$ transcription and repress $en$ transcription, and since

286: they are co-expressed we designate them both SLP. The $wg$ gene

287: encodes a glycoprotein that is secreted from the cells that synthesize

288: it \cite{hs92,pv99}, and can bind to

289: the Frizzled receptor on neighboring cells, initiating a signaling cascade leading to

290: the transcription of {\it engrailed} ($en$) \cite{cn97}. 

291: EN, the homeodomain-containing product of the {\it en} gene,

292: promotes the transcription of the {\it hedgehog} gene ({\it hh})

293: \cite{tek92}. In addition to the homeodomain, EN

294: contains a separate repression domain that

295: affects the transcription of $ci$ \cite{ek90} and

296: possibly $ptc$ \cite{hi90,tnmi93}. The

297: hedgehog protein (HH) is tethered to the cell membrane by a

298: cholesterol linkage that is severed by the dispatched protein, 

299: freeing it to bind to the HH receptor PTC on a neighboring cell \cite{im01}

300: . The intracellular domain of PTC forms a

301: complex with smoothened (SMO) in which

302: SMO is inactivated by a post-translational conformation change (Ingham

303: 1998).  Binding of HH to PTC removes the inhibition of SMO, and

304: activates a pathway that results in the modification of CI \cite{i98}. The CI protein

305: can be converted into one of two transcription factors, depending on the PTC-HH

306: interactions. In the absence of HH signaling CI is cleaved to form CIR,

307: a transcriptional repressor that represses $wg$, $ptc$ and $hh$ transcription\cite{ak99}.

308:  When secreted HH binds to PTC and frees SMO,

309: CI is converted to a transcriptional activator, CIA, that promotes the 

310: transcription of $wg$ and $ptc$ \cite{ak99,ok98}.

311: 

312: 

313: 

314: \begin{figure}

315: \vskip-1cm

316: \centering

317: \includegraphics[width=13cm,angle=-90,clip=]{fig2.ps}

318: \caption{a) Top: Illustration of the gene expression pattern of {\it wingless} on a gastrulating 

319: (stage 9) embryo. Other segment polarity genes have similar periodic patterns that are 

320: maintained for around three hours of embryonic development. The parasegmental furrows

321: form at the posterior border of the $wg$-expressing cells~\cite{w98}. Bottom: Synthesis of the wild

322: type expression patterns of the segment polarity genes (see also text)~\cite{hs92,w98}. Left corresponds to 

323: anterior and right to posterior in each parasegment. Horizontal rows correspond to the pattern of

324: individual nodes - specified at the left side of the row - over two full and two 

325: partial parasegments. Each parasegment is assumed to be four cells wide. A black (gray)

326: box denotes a node that is (is not) expressed. b) Top: {\it wingless} expression pattern in

327: an {\it patched} knock-out mutant embryo at stage 11~\cite{tek92}. The {\it wingless} stripes

328: broaden, and secondary furrows appear at the middle of the parasegment, indicating a new

329: {\it en-wg} boundary. Bottom: Broad striped steady state of the Boolean model, obtained

330: when {\it patched} is kept off (with the change that $ptc$ and PTC are not expressed), or when {\it wg, en, hh} are initiated in every cell~\cite{ao03}.

331:  This steady state agrees with all experimental observations on {\it ptc} mutants and

332: heat-shocked genes~\cite{tek92,gakt00,mbi88,slnk95,dshk88,itn91,bw93}. c) Top: {\it wingless} expression pattern in

333: an {\it engrailed} knock-out mutant embryo at stage 11~\cite{tek92}. The initial 

334: periodic pattern is disappearing, and gives rise to a non-segmented, embryonic lethal

335: phenotype. Bottom: Non-segmented steady state of the Boolean model, obtained when 

336: {\it wg, en or hh} are kept off, or cell-to-cell signaling is disrupted~\cite{ao03}. This steady state

337: agrees with all experimental observations on {\it wg, en, hh} mutants~\cite{tek92,dshk88,slnk95,

338: hi90,gakt00}. Gene expression 

339: images obtained from http://www.fruitfly.org (a)

340: and~\cite{tek92} (b,c).  }

341: \label{fig-drosophila}

342: \end{figure}

343: 

344: The initial state of the {\it Drosophila} segment polarity genes includes two-cell-wide SLP stripes 

345: followed by two-cell-wide stripes not expressing SLP \cite{cgg94}, single-cell-wide $wg$, $en$ and $hh$ stripes 

346: followed by three cells not expressing them, and three-cell-wide stripes for

347: $ci$ and $ptc$ \cite{hs92,w98}:

348: This pattern is maintained almost unmodified for three hours\footnote{A notable exception includes the refinement

349: of the $ptc$ pattern.} (see Fig.~\ref{fig-drosophila}a), 

350: during which time the embryo is divided into $14$ parasegments by furrows positioned between the the $wg$ and 

351: $en$ -expressing cells~\cite{hs92}. 

352: 

353: The first model of the segment polarity gene network was proposed

354: by von Dassow and collaborators \cite{dmmo00}, and is a continuous-state model of $13$ equations

355: and $48$ unknown kinetic parameters. The main conclusion of the \cite{dmmo00} article

356: is that the gene patterns are robust with respect to variations in the kinetic

357: constants in the rate laws, thus the essential feature of this network is its topology,

358: i.e. the existence and signature (activating or inhibiting) of the interactions. The idea of 

359: the network topology determining its dynamics was further explored by \cite{ao03}, who

360: used a slightly different network reconstruction and assumed synchronous Boolean regulation

361: among nodes. In the \cite{ao03} model each mRNA and protein is represented by a node of a

362: network, and the state of each node is $1$ or $0$, 

363: according to whether the corresponding substance

364: is present or not. The states of the nodes are updated synchronously, and the future

365: state of node $i$ is determined by a Boolean function of its current state and 

366: the current states of those nodes that

367: have edges incident on it. The updating functions 

368: are based on the experimental information and on the following

369: dynamical assumptions: (i) the synthesis of mRNAs/proteins has the duration of one timestep;

370: (ii) the effect of transcriptional activators and inhibitors is

371: never additive, but rather, inhibitors are dominant; 

372: (iii) mRNAs decay in one timestep if not transcribed;

373: (iv) transcription factors and proteins undergoing post-translational

374: modification decay in one timestep if their mRNA is not present;

375: (v) protein-protein binding, such as in the formation of the 

376: Patched-Hedgehog complex, is assumed to be instantaneous.

377: In summary, the \cite{ao03} model assumes that gene transcription,

378: protein translation, mRNA and protein decay all happen on a similar

379: timescale, while protein complex formation is instantaneous compared to

380: this common timescale.

381: 

382: The \cite{dmmo00} and \cite{ao03} models agree in their conclusions regarding the robustness

383: of the segment polarity gene network. The simplicity of the Boolean rules in the latter also allows for

384: the exploration of knock-out mutations and changes in the prepattern of the segment polarity genes.

385: Starting from the known initial state of 

386: {\it en, wg, hh, ptc, ci} and SLP, and assuming the null(off) state for all other nodes

387: the \cite{ao03} model leads to a time-invariant spatial pattern (see Fig. 2a)

388: that coincides with the experimentally

389: observed wild-type expression of the segment polarity genes

390: during stages $9$-$11$. Indeed, $wg$ and WG are expressed in the most posterior cell

391: of each parasegment, while  $en$, EN, $hh$ and HH are expressed

392: in the most anterior cell of each parasegment, as is observed experimentally

393: \cite{i98,tek92}, $ptc$ is expressed in two 

394: stripes of cells, one stripe on each side

395: of the $en$-expressing cells, the anterior one coinciding with the $wg$ stripe

396: \cite{hi90,hs92}. $ci$ is expressed almost ubiquitously, with the

397: exception of the cells expressing $en$ \cite{ek90}. CIA is  expressed in the neighbors of the HH-expressing cells,

398: while CIR is expressed far from the HH-expressing cells \cite{ak99}. The model indicates that 

399: knock-out mutations in {\it en, wg, hh} cause the non-segmented

400: gene pattern shown on Fig. 2b, which agrees with experimental observations.

401:  Indeed, the $hh$ expression in $en$ null embryos starts normally, but disappears before stage $10$

402: \cite{tek92}. In $wg$ null embryos, $en$ is initiated normally but

403: fades away by stage $9$, as observed by DiNardo {\it et al.} (1988),

404:  while $ci$ is ubiquitously expressed \cite{slnk95}. In $hh$ mutant embryos 

405:  the $wg$ expression disappears by stage $10$ \cite{hi90}, as does the expression of $ptc$,

406:  and there is no segmentation \cite{gakt00}. On the other hand, {\it ptc} knockout mutations or

407: overexpressed initial states lead to the broad-striped pattern of Fig. 2c\footnote{The only difference between the

408: {\it ptc} mutant and heat-shock pattern is that the former does not express $ptc$ and PTC}. Indeed, 

409: experimental results indicate broad $en$, $wg$ and $hh$ stripes 

410:  \cite{tek92,gakt00,mbi88} and  Gallet {\it et al.} (2000) 

411:  find that a new ectopic groove forms at the second $en-wg$ interface at the middle of the

412: parasegment. Also, $ci$ is not expressed at this ectopic groove \cite{slnk95}.

413:  In heat-shock experiments the $wg$ and $ptc$ 

414: stripes expand anteriorly when $hh$ or $en$ are

415: ubiquitously induced \cite{gakt00}, while

416: narrower $ci$ stripes emerge after a transient decay of $ci$ \cite{slnk95}.

417: Intriguingly, the \cite{ao03} model finds that a knock-out mutation of $ci$

418: does not change the {\it en, wg, hh} patterns but disrupts $ptc$ expression;

419: experiments indicate that the segmental

420: grooves are present and $wg$ is expressed until stage $11$, but $ptc$

421: expression decays \cite{gakt00}. In summary, the simple synchronous Boolean 

422: model~\cite{ao03} 

423: captures perfectly the wild type and mutant expression patterns of the segment

424: polarity genes, and thus serves as a good starting point for a more realistic 

425: model that relaxes the assumption of synchronicity.

426: 

427: We focus our attention on a single parasegment of four cells, thus the total

428: number of nodes we consider is $4\times 13=52$. We use the same interaction topology and logical rules as the 

429: synchronous model \cite{ao03}, but instead of assuming that the states of all nodes are updated simultaneously, 

430: we update the state of each node individually (see Table~\ref{table_rules}). To maintain the highest generality, 

431: we incorporate possible cell to cell variations in synthesis and decay processes.\footnote{We follow the 

432: \cite{ao03} model in assuming very short 

433: timescales for PTC-HH binding and

434: SMO activation, and consequently in Figure \ref{fig-network} and in the regulatory rules we connect the CI posttranslational modifications

435: to HH signaling. We have verified that this assumption can be relaxed without any qualitative changes in

436: the results.}  

437: \begin{table}

438: \caption{Regulatory functions governing the states of segment polarity gene products in the model

439: . Each node is labeled by its biochemical symbol and subscripts signify cell number. The times

440:  $\tau^j$ signify the last time node $j$ was updated before $t$.}

441: \label{table_rules}

442: \centering{

443: \begin{tabular}{ll}

444: \hline %\toprule

445: Node & Boolean updating function in the asynchronous algorithm\\

446: \hline\hline%\midrule

447: $SLP_i$ & $SLP_i(t)=\left\{\begin{array}{lllll}

448: 0 &\mbox{if}& i\in\{1,2\}\\

449: 1 &\mbox{if}& i\in \{3,4\}\\

450: \end{array}\right.$ \\

451: $wg_i$ & $wg_i(t)=(CIA_i(\tau_{CIA})$ and $SLP_i(\tau_{SLP})$ and not $CIR_i(\tau_{CIR}))$\\

452:         & or $[wg_i(\tau_{wg}) $ and $(CIA_i(\tau_{CIA})$ or $SLP_i(\tau_{SLP}) )$ 

453: 		 and not $CIR_i(\tau_{CIR})]$ \\

454: $WG_i$ & $WG_i(t)=wg_i(\tau_{wg})$  \\

455: $en_i$ & $en_i(t)=(WG_{i-1}(\tau_{WG1})$ or $WG_{i+1}(\tau_{WG2}))$ and not $SLP_i(\tau_{SLP})$ \\

456: $EN_i$ & $EN_i(t)=en_i(\tau_{en})$  \\

457: $hh_i$ & $hh_i(t)=EN_i(\tau_{EN})$ and not $CIR_i(\tau_{CIR})$ \\

458: $HH_i$ & $HH_i(t)=hh_i(\tau_{hh})$ \\

459: $ptc_i$ & $ptc_i(t)=CIA_i(\tau_{CIA})$ and  not $EN_i(\tau_{EN})$ and not $CIR_i(\tau_{CIR})$ \\

460: $PTC_i$ & $PTC_i(t)=ptc_i(\tau_{ptc})$ or $(PTC_i(\tau_{PTC})$ 

461: and not $HH_{i-1}(\tau_{HH1})$ and not $HH_{i+1}(\tau_{HH2}))$ \\

462: $ci_i$ & $ci_i(t)=$ not $EN_i(\tau_{EN})$ \\

463: $CI_i$ & $CI_i(t)=ci_i(\tau_{ci})$ \\

464: $CIA_i$ & $CIA_i(t)=CI_i(\tau_{CI})$ and [not $PTC_i(\tau_{PTC})$ or $HH_{i-1}(\tau_{HH1})$\\ 

465:         &   or $HH_{i+1}(\tau_{HH2})$ or $hh_{i-1}(\tau_{hh1})$ or $hh_{i+1}(\tau_{hh2})$]\\

466: $CIR_i$ &  $CIR_i(t)=CI_i(\tau_{CI})$ and $PTC_i(\tau_{PTC})$ 

467:          and not $HH_{i-1}(\tau_{HH1})$ and not $HH_{i+1}(\tau_{HH2})$\\

468:        &  and not $hh_{i-1}(\tau_{hh1})$ and not $hh_{i+1}(\tau_{hh2})$\\

469: \hline%\bottomrule 

470: \end{tabular}}

471: \end{table}

472: 

473: Throught the text, the notation ``$wg_1^t$'' or ``$wg_1(t)$'' represent the state of 

474: {\it wingless} mRNA in the first cell of 

475: the parasegment at time $t$. Similar notations apply for other mRNAs and proteins. There 

476: are 4 cells in 

477: each parasegment, and  we adopted periodic boundary conditions, meaning that: $node_{4+1}=node_1$ and 

478: $node_{1-1}=node_4$. The wild type initial state corresponds to: 

479: \beqn{eq-initial-wt}

480:    wg_4^0=1,\ \ en_1^0=1,\ \ hh_1^0=1,\ \ ptc_{2,3,4}^0=1, \ \ ci_{2,3,4}^0=1

481: \eeqn

482: and the remaining nodes are zero.

483: The asynchronous model represented in Table~\ref{table_rules} exhibits the same steady states as the 

484: synchronous model developed in~\cite{ao03}. Note that three of the four main steady states

485: agree perfectly with experimentally observed states corresponding to wild type, 

486: {\it en, wg or hh} mutant and {\it ptc} mutant embryonic patterns~\cite{tek92,dshk88,slnk95,

487: hi90,gakt00,mbi88,bw93,itn91,hs92,w98}. A summary is presented in Table~\ref{table_steady_states}.

488: \begin{table}[h]

489: \label{table_steady_states}

490: \caption{Complete characterization of the model's steady states.}

491: \begin{center}

492: \begin{tabular}{ll}

493: \hline

494:   Steady state  & Expressed nodes \\

495: \hline\hline

496:   wild type & $wg_{4}$, $WG_{4}$, $en_{1}$, $EN_{1}$, $hh_{1}$, $HH_{1}$, \\

497:             & $ptc_{2,4}$, $PTC_{2,3,4}$, $ci_{2,3,4}$, 

498:               $CI_{2,3,4}$, $CIA_{2,4}$, $CIR_{3}$   \\

499: \hline

500:   broad stripes & $wg_{3,4}$, $WG_{3,4}$, $en_{1,2}$, $EN_{1,2}$, 

501:                        $hh_{1,2}$, $HH_{1,2}$,  \\

502:                 & $ptc_{3,4}$, $PTC_{3,4}$, $ci_{3,4}$, $CI_{3,4}$, $CIA_{3,4}$  \\

503: \hline

504:   no segmentation & $ci_{1,2,3,4}$, $CI_{1,2,3,4}$, 

505:                     $PTC_{1,2,3,4}$, $CIR_{1,2,3,4}$ \\

506: \hline

507:   wild type variant & $wg_{4}$, $WG_{4}$, $en_{1}$, $EN_{1}$, $hh_{1}$, $HH_{1}$, \\

508:             & $ptc_{2,4}$, $PTC_{1,2,3,4}$, $ci_{2,3,4}$, 

509:               $CI_{2,3,4}$, $CIA_{2,4}$, $CIR_{3}$ \\

510: \hline

511:   ectopic  &  $wg_{3}$, $WG_{3}$, $en_{2}$, $EN_{2}$, $hh_{2}$, $HH_{2}$, \\

512:             & $ptc_{1,3}$, $PTC_{1,3,4}$, $ci_{1,3,4}$, 

513:               $CI_{1,3,4}$, $CIA_{1,3}$, $CIR_{4}$   \\

514: \hline

515:   ectopic variant & $wg_{3}$, $WG_{3}$, $en_{2}$, $EN_{2}$, $hh_{2}$, $HH_{2}$, \\

516:             & $ptc_{1,3}$, $PTC_{1,2,3,4}$, $ci_{1,3,4}$, 

517:               $CI_{1,3,4}$, $CIA_{1,3}$, $CIR_{4}$  \\

518: \hline

519: \end{tabular}

520: \end{center}

521: \end{table}

522: 

523: 

524: 

525: \section{Randomly perturbed timescales}

526: 

527: As in the context of parallel computation systems, the fundamental difference between 

528: synchronous and asynchronous updates is at the level of task coordination and data communication  

529: among nodes in a network~\cite{tsi}.

530: Synchronous algorithms are highly coordinated: at pre-determined instants, all the nodes  

531: ``stop'' and exchange the current information among themselves.

532: For instance, suppose there are $N$ nodes, where each node $i$ 

533: ``computes'' the state of variable $x_i$, according to a function $f_i(x_1,x_2,\ldots,x_N)$ 

534: ($i=1,\ldots,N$). When all the $N$ nodes have finished phase $k$, they exchange

535: their current states, $x_i^k$, and then proceed to phase $k+1$, that is

536: \beq

537:    x_i^{k+1}=f_i(x_1^k,x_2^k,\ldots,x_N^k).

538: \eeq

539: Asynchronous algorithms, on the other hand, admit a greater flexibility at the level of process coordination. 

540: Each node is allowed to have its own ``computation rate'', that is, during any time interval $[t_a,t_b]$,

541: node $i$ may be updated only once, while node $j$ may be updated $\ell>1$ times. 

542: In this case, communication delays between nodes may occur, and some possibly outdated 

543: information may be used: for instance, node $j$ uses the same value $x_i(t_a)$ throughout its $\ell$ updates in

544: the interval $[t_a,t_b]$. However, an overall gain in efficiency in achieving the final result may be expected.

545: For instance, in our example, the wild type steady state is reached in less than 4 steps with the 

546: asynchronous algorithms (see Sections~\ref{sec-timesep},~\ref{sec-markov}), 

547: while with the synchronous algorithm 6 steps are needed~\cite{ao03}.

548: 

549: In general, we may say that node $i$ updates its state at times:

550: \beq

551:     T_i^1, T_i^2,\ldots, T_i^k,\ldots \ \ \  k\in\N_0,

552: \eeq

553: and the local variables, $x_i$, are updated according to:

554: \beqn{eq-inode}

555:       x_i[T_i^k] = f_i(x_1[\tau^k_{1i}],\ldots,x_N[\tau^k_{Ni}]),

556: \eeqn

557: where $\tau^k_{ji}$ is defined as

558: \beq

559:       \tau^k_{ji}=\mbox{ the latest available communication to node $i$, from node $j$.}

560: \eeq

561: There is usually a distinction between {\em totally} or {\em partially} asynchronous algorithms: 

562: the latter impose an updating constraint (every variable is updated at least once in any interval of a 

563: fixed length), while the former simply ensure that a variable is updated infinitely many times.

564: 

565: In a first numerical experiment we consider a totally asynchronous algorithm, with the highest degree of 

566: individual variability in each process' duration. The time unit of the synchronous model is randomly perturbed, 

567: so that the set of updating times for each node $i$ ($1\leq i\leq N$) is of the form 

568: \beq

569:    T_i^{k+1} = T_i^k +1 +\eps\;r_i^k,\ \ \  k\in\N,

570: \eeq

571: where $r_i^k$ are random numbers generated at each iteration, out of a uniform distribution in the interval 

572: $[-1,1]$. The value $\eps\in[0,1)$ is the magnitude of the

573: perturbation (the case $\eps=0$ coincides with the synchronous algorithm). At any given time $t$, the next node(s) 

574: to be updated is(are) $j$ such that $T_j^{\ell}=\min_{i,k}\{ T_i^k\geq t\}$, for some $\ell$.

575: Since the duration of synthesis and decay processes is not known, through this algorithm one may randomly explore the 

576: space of all possible timescales and update orders, and derive the probability of different outcomes. 

577: The set of updating times $\{T_i^k, k\in\N_0 \}$ may vary with each execution of the algorithm, so an element of

578: stochasticity is naturally introduced.

579: 

580: Always starting from the wild type initial condition\rf{eq-initial-wt}, this experiment was conducted over a 

581: wide range of perturbations ($10^{-12}\leq\eps\leq0.65$), and 30000 trials were executed for each $\eps$. 

582: The results (see Figure~\ref{fig-allstates}) show that all of the model's steady states may occur with a certain

583: frequency: the wild type pattern with only $57\%$, followed by the broad-striped pattern ($24\%$) observed in 

584: heat-shock experiments and $ptc$ mutants~\cite{gakt00} and by the pattern with no segmentation ($15\%$) observed 

585: in $en$, $hh$ or $wg$ mutants~\cite{tek92}, the latter two corresponding to embryonic lethal phenotypes~\cite{gakt00}. 

586: %EDS: eventually (no rush) we need a better-quality figure here; I would draw

587: %     a piecewise linear interpolating curve instead of the stars

588: \begin{figure}

589: \label{fig-allstates}

590: \centerline{

591: \scalebox{0.55}[0.55]{\includegraphics{fig3.eps} } }

592: \caption{Fragility of the regulatory network. With the totally asynchronous algorithm 

593: the wild type initial state can lead to one of the six distinct steady states. 

594: Each $*$ corresponds to an $\eps$ perturbation of the unit time-step. 

595: Note that the $\eps \rightarrow 0$ limit does not give the same results as a synchronous update,

596: demonstrating the fundamental difference between synchronous and asynchronous models.}

597: \end{figure}

598: 

599: We observe that each of the steady state patterns {\it occurs with a frequency which is independent 

600: of the value of $\eps$, for $\eps<0.15$}. This may indicate that it is the order in which the protein 

601: and mRNA nodes are updated that determines the steady state pattern.

602: In order to test this hypothesis, we designed a second experiment assuming that

603: \bit

604: \item[(A1)] Every node is updated exactly once during each unit time interval $(k,k+1]$ ($k=0,1,2,\ldots$), 

605:     according to a given order $\phi^k$. 

606: \eit

607: This order $\phi^k$ is a permutation of $\{1,\ldots N\}$, chosen randomly (again out of a uniform 

608: distribution over the set of all $N!$ possible permutations) at the beginning of the time unit $k$. 

609: Then we have

610: \beq

611:    T_i^k = N(k-1) + \phi^k(i),\ \ \  k\in\N,

612: \eeq

613: so that $\phi^k(j)<\phi^k(i)$ implies $T_j^k<T_i^k$, and node $j$ is updated before node $i$.

614: The partially asynchronous algorithm leads to the same patterns, with incidence rates very similar to 

615: those observed with the totally asynchronous algorithm (see Table~\ref{tab-all-permutations}).

616: \begin{table}

617: \label{tab-all-permutations}

618: \caption{The frequencies of the six steady states observed in the partially asynchronous model confirm 

619: those observed for the totally asynchronous model. The frequencies are computed from $30000$ executions.}

620: \begin{center}

621: \begin{tabular}{ll}

622: \hline

623:  Steady State  & Incidence \\

624: \hline\hline

625:   wild type & 56\% \\

626: %\hline

627:   broad stripes & 24\% \\

628: %\hline

629:   no segmentation & 15\% \\

630: %\hline

631:   wild type variant & 4.2\% \\

632: %\hline

633:   ectopic  & 0.98\% \\

634: %\hline

635:   ectopic variant & 0.68\% \\

636: \hline 

637: \end{tabular}

638: \end{center}

639: \end{table} 

640: 

641: These results indicate the fragility of the wild type gene pattern with respect to changes in the 

642: timescales of synthesis and decay processes. While more than half of the random timescale combinations 

643: still lead to the expected outcome, a considerable percentage results in loss of the prepattern and an 

644: inviable final state.

645: 

646: 

647: \subsection{Imbalance between CIA and CIR}

648: 

649: Further analysis shows that the divergence from wild type can be attributed to an imbalance between 

650: the two opposing Cubitus Interruptus transcription factors (CIA, CIR) in the posterior half of the parasegment.

651: Indeed, the expression of CIA and CIR in both the broad stripes and the no segmentation patterns is 

652: clearly distinct from that in the wild type pattern. In the next set of numerical experiments, we explore the

653: effects of CIA/CIR expression in the formation of the final pattern.

654:  

655: 

656: In wild type, the two Cubitus Interruptus proteins, CIA and CIR, are expressed in different cells of the posterior 

657: part of the parasegments, namely,

658: \beq

659:   & CIA_{3}=0, \ \ \ CIA_{4}=1, \\

660:   & CIR_{3}=1, \ \ \ CIR_{4}=0, 

661: \eeq

662: and the maintenance of these complementary ON/OFF states is essential in the wild type pattern.

663: To investigate the effect of an imbalance between the two Cubitus Interruptus proteins, we considered two 

664: disruptive cases: the (transient) overexpression of CIR, or the (transient) overexpression of CIA and absence 

665: of CIR in both posterior cells.

666: 

667: More precisely, in the totally asynchronous algorithm (choosing $\eps=0.1$), 

668: we transiently imposed an expression pattern for the Cubitus proteins as follows: 

669: \bit

670: \item[(a)] $CIA_{3,4}^t=1$ and $CIR_{3,4}^t=0$, for $t\in[3,3+\tau]$;

671: \item[(b)] $CIR_{3,4}^t=1$, for $t\in[3,3+\tau]$,

672: \eit

673: where $\tau$ is the duration of the transient. The overexpression starts after three unit time steps.

674: The duration of the transient was:

675: \beq

676:    \tau\in\{0,0.3,0.75,1.5,2.75,3\},

677: \eeq

678: so when $\tau=0$ the results of the general totally asynchronous algorithm are recovered.

679: 

680: Our results show that even a small transient imbalance between CIA and CIR causes a clear bias towards a 

681: mutant state: the broad stripes mutant in case (a), or the no segmentation mutant in case (b).

682: Thus any perturbation that leads to such an imbalance has as severe effects as 

683: a mutation in $ptc$ (causing the broad striped pattern) or either of $en$, $wg$ or $hh$ 

684: (causing the nonsegmented pattern).   

685: 

686: \begin{figure}[htb]

687: \centerline{\scalebox{0.42}[0.42]{\includegraphics{fig4a.eps}}

688: \scalebox{0.42}[0.42]{\includegraphics{fig4b.eps}}}

689: \caption{Bias towards mutant states. The $x$-axis represents the duration of the 

690: transient, $\tau$ (in unit time steps). The incidence

691: probabilities were computed over 20000 trials. 

692: (a) The case $CIA_{3,4}^t=1$ and $CIR_{3,4}^t=0$ leads to the broad striped pattern. 

693: (b) The case $CIR_{3,4}^t=1$ leads to the no segmentation pattern.}

694: \label{fig-CIACIR}

695: \end{figure}

696: 

697: 

698: These numerical experiments also open the way to many other questions: 

699: are there particular sequences that lead to a given steady state? 

700: How is the evolution from the initial to steady state?

701: How robust is the asynchronous model with respect to initial conditions?

702: 

703: 

704: \section{Timescale separation uncovers robustness of the model}

705: \label{sec-timesep}

706:  

707: In both of the previous algorithms we assumed no bias towards a preferred protein/mRNA updating sequence and, 

708: as a result, an unrealistic divergence from the wild type pattern is observed, with high incidence of 

709: inviable states.

710: %% RA softened slighly

711: Based on the fact that post-translational processes such as protein conformational changes

712: or complex formation usually have shorter durations than transcription, 

713: translation or mRNA decay, we introduce a distinct timescale separation by choosing to update proteins 

714: first and mRNAs later. This leads to a model which is very robust, in the sense that the wild type pattern 

715: occurs with a frequency of $87.5\%$ and only one other steady state is observed, the broad striped pattern,

716: with a frequency of $12.5\%$.

717: %

718: We completely characterize this model by theoretically showing that only two of the six steady states are 

719: possible (and occur with well determined frequencies), and identifying the order of updates that leads to 

720: divergence from wild type. We also show that the wild type state is really an attractor for the system, while 

721: the pathway to the broad stripes state may show oscillatory cycles.

722: 

723: 

724: Assuming that 

725: \bit

726: \item[(A2)] All the proteins are updated before all the genes,

727: \eit

728: the $k$-th iteration of the two-timescale algorithm proceeds as follows: 

729: \bit

730: \item[(A3)] At the begining of the $k$-th time unit, generate a random permutation, $\phi^k_{\tProt}$ of 

731: $\{1,\ldots L\}$, and a random permutation, $\phi^k_{\tmRNA}$ of $\{L+1,\ldots N\}$ (using a uniform d

732: istribution over, respectively, the sets of $L!$ and $(N-L+1)!$ possible permutations).

733: Then the $N$ nodes are updated in the order given by $\phi^k=(\phi^k_{\tProt},\;\phi^k_{\tmRNA})$, 

734: according to\rf{eq-inode}, with

735: \beq

736:       \tau^k_{ji}=\left\{ \begin{array}{cr}

737:                             T_j^{k-1}, & \phi^k(j)\leq\phi^k(i) \\

738:                             T_j^k, & \phi^k(j)>\phi^k(i).

739:                           \end{array}

740:                   \right. 

741: \eeq

742: \eit

743: As an example, suppose that

744: \beq

745:    N=5,\ \ L=3,\ \ \phi^1_{\tProt}=\{2,1,3\}, \ \ \phi^1_{\tmRNA}=\{5,4\}.

746: \eeq

747: Then, $\phi^1=\{2,1,3,5,4\}$, and 

748: $T_1^1=2$, $T_2^1=1$, $T_3^1=3$, $T_4^1=5$, $T_5^1=4$.

749: The nodes are updated as follows

750: (for simplicity of notation, we will write $x_i^k:=x_i[T_i^k]$):

751: \beq

752:    x_2^1 &=& f_2(x_1^0,x_2^0,x_3^0,x_4^0,x_5^0),\\

753:    x_1^1 &=& f_1(x_1^0,x_2^1,x_3^0,x_4^0,x_5^0),\\

754:    x_3^1 &=& f_3(x_1^1,x_2^1,x_3^0,x_4^0,x_5^0),\\

755:    x_5^1 &=& f_5(x_1^1,x_2^1,x_3^1,x_4^0,x_5^0),\\

756:    x_4^1 &=& f_4(x_1^1,x_2^1,x_3^1,x_4^0,x_5^1).

757: \eeq

758: 

759: 

760: Some general inferences about the updating rules can be made. For example, the translation process only 

761: depends on the presence of the transcript, which is decided in the previous time unit, 

762: thus $\Prot^t=\mRNA^{t-1}$.

763: The beginning of a transcription process depends on the presence of transcription factors, and

764: since mRNAs are updated after proteins, $\mRNA^t=\Prot^t$. The outcome of post-translational

765: processes depends on the order of updates, for example the rule for a binding process will be 

766: $\mbox{\it Complex}^t=\Prot_1^{t_1}\mbox{ and } \Prot_2^{t_2}$, where $t_1$ and $t_2$ 

767: can be either $t-1$ or $t$ (see Table~\ref{table_two_rules}).

768: 

769: \begin{table}

770: \caption{Regulatory functions governing the states of segment polarity gene products in the two-timescale 

771: asynchronous algorithm. Each node is labeled by its biochemical symbol, subscripts signify cell number

772: and superscripts signify timestep. 

773: Although the updating time of each node varies, each function can be written by using the states of effector 

774: nodes at the previous or current timesteps. 

775: The individual times $t_1 \ldots t_{10}$ can take the values  $\{t-1, t\}$.}

776: \label{table_two_rules}

777: \centering{

778: \begin{tabular}{ll}

779: \hline %\toprule

780: Node & Boolean updating function in the two-timescale algorithm\\

781: \hline\hline%\midrule

782: $wg_i$ & $wg_i^{t}=(CIA_i^{t}$ and $SLP_i^{t}$ and not $CIR_i^t)$

783:          or $[wg_i^{t-1} $ and $(CIA_i^t$ or $SLP_i^t )$ and not $CIR_i^t]$ \\

784: $WG_i$ & $WG_i^{t}=wg_i^{t-1}$  \\

785: $en_i$ & $en^{t}_i=(WG_{i-1}^t$ or $WG_{i+1}^t)$ and not $SLP^t_i$ \\

786: $EN_i$ & $EN^{t}_i=en^{t-1}_i$  \\

787: $hh_i$ & $hh_i^{t}=EN_i^t$ and not $CIR_i^t$ \\

788: $HH_i$ & $HH^{t}_i=hh^{t-1}_i$ \\

789: $ptc_i$ & $ptc_i^{t}=CIA^t_i$ and  not $EN_i^t$ and not $CIR^t_i$ \\

790: $PTC_i$ & $PTC^{t}_i=ptc_i^{t-1}$ or $(PTC_i^{t-1}$ and not $HH_{i-1}^{t_1}$ and not 

791: $HH_{i+1}^{t_2})$ \\

792: $ci_i$ & $ci_i^{t}=$ not $EN_i^t$ \\

793: $CI_i$ & $CI_i^{t}=ci_i^{t-1}$ \\

794: $CIA_i$ & $CIA_i^{t}=CI_i^{t_3}$ and (not $PTC_i^{t_4}$ or $HH_{i-1}^{t_5}$ or 

795: $HH_{i+1}^{t_6}$ or $hh_{i\pm1}^{t-1}$)\\

796: $CIR_i$ &  $CIR_i^{t}=CI_i^{t_7}$ and $PTC_i^{t_8}$ and not $HH_{i-1}^{t_9}$ and not $HH_{i+1}^{t_{10}}$

797: and not $hh_{i\pm1}^{t-1}$\\

798: \hline%\bottomrule 

799: \end{tabular}}

800: \end{table}

801: 

802: 

803: 

804: \subsection{Two steady states}

805: 

806: The trajectory of the system is thus defined by a sequence of permutations (obtained as described in A3) 

807: and the corresponding sequence of states:

808: \beqn{eq-syst}

809:      \{ \phi^k\},\ \{ x^k\}\ \ \mbox{ for } \ k=0,1,2,\ldots.

810: \eeqn

811: We will show that for pre-patterns that satisfy  $wg_4^{0}=1$, $ci_1^{0}=0$ and  $ptc_1^{0}=0$ (which 

812: include the pattern observed in the wild type at stage 8), the only possible steady states for 

813: system\rf{eq-syst} are the wild type pattern experimentally observed at stages 9-11, and a mutant 

814: with broad $wg$ stripes.

815: %

816: We assume that all the proteins are absent initially (at $T=0$), and that the which {\it sloppy pair} gene

817: is maintained at a constant value:  $SLP_{1,2}=0$ and $SLP_{3,4}=1$

818: %% RA softened slightly

819: This pattern for SLP is responsible for permanent absence (or expression) of some of the segment polarity genes, 

820: and corresponding proteins, in certain cells of the parasegment. By direct inspection of the model, it follows that 

821: \beqn{eq-wg12}

822:    wg_{1,2}^0=0,\ \ \Rightarrow\ \

823:    wg_{1,2}^T=0,\ \   WG_{1,2}^T=0,\ \ \mbox{for } T\geq0

824: \eeqn

825: \beqn{eq-en-hh34}

826:    en_{3,4}^T=0,\ \ EN_{3,4}^T=0,\ \ \mbox{for } T\geq0,\\

827:    hh_{3,4}^T=0,\ \ HH_{3,4}^T=0, \ \ \mbox{for }  T\geq0 

828: \eeqn

829: and 

830: \beqn{eq-ci34-T=0}

831:    ci_{3,4}^0=1,\ \ \Rightarrow\ \

832:    ci_{3,4}^T=1,\mbox{ for }  T\geq0,\ \mbox{ and }\ CI_{3,4}^T=1, \mbox{for }  T\geq1\\

833:    \label{eq-ci34-T=1}

834:    ci_{3,4}^0=0,\ \ \Rightarrow\ \

835:    ci_{3,4}^T=1,\mbox{ for }  T\geq1,\ \mbox{ and }\ CI_{3,4}^T=1, \mbox{for }  T\geq2.

836: \eeqn

837: The next statement reflects the fact that the effect of $wg_4$ activating $en_1$ propagates

838: to inhibit $ci_1$ which then eliminates all forms of CI from the first cell. 

839: 

840: \bfc{fc-CIR1}

841: Assume that $wg_4^{0}=1$, $ci_1^{0}=0$ and  $ptc_1^{0}=0$. 

842: For any $T\geq0$, if $wg_4^{t}=1$ for all $0\leq t\leq T$, then 

843: $CI_1^{t}=0$ for all $3\leq t\leq T+3$ and

844: $CIR_1^{t}=0$ for all $0\leq t\leq T+3$.

845: \efc

846: 

847: 

848: \bp{pr-two-stst}

849: Assume $wg_4^{0}=1$, $ci_1^{0}=0$ and  $ptc_1^{0}=0$. 

850: Under assumptions A1-A2, $wg_4^T=1$, for all $T\geq0$.

851: \ep

852: 

853: \bpr

854: We will argue by contradiction.

855: Suppose that there do exist times $t\geq1$ with $wg_4^t=0$, and

856: let $T$ be the minimum of such times, that is,

857: \beq

858:    wg_4^T=0\ \ \mbox{ and } wg_4^t=1,\ \ \mbox{ for all } 0\leq t<T.

859: \eeq 

860: >From the model's equations, together with assumptions A1-A2:

861: \beq

862:    WG_4^t &= & wg_4^{t-1},  \\

863:    wg_4^t &=& (CIA_4^t\mbox{ and not }CIR_4^t) \mbox{ or } (wg_4^{t-1}\mbox{ and not }CIR_4^t),

864: \eeq 

865: for all $t\geq1$.

866: So, it follows that

867: \beqn{eq-WG4}

868:    WG_4^t & =& 1,\ \ \mbox{ for all } 0\leq t\leq T, \\

869:    CIR_4^t & =& 0,\ \ \mbox{ for all } 0\leq t<T,

870:    \ \ \mbox{ and } CIR_4^T=1.

871: \eeqn

872: Now, from Fact~\ref{fc-CIR1} it also follows that

873: \beqn{eq-cir1}

874:    CIR_1^t=0 \ \ \mbox{for all}\ \ 0\leq t\leq T+2. 

875: \eeqn

876: The equation for $CIR_4$ is:

877: \beqn{eq-CIR4}

878:     CIR_4^t &=& CI_4^{t_d} \mbox{ and not } 

879:         [\mbox{not }PTC_4^{t_a} 

880:          \mbox{ or } HH_{3}^{t_c}\mbox{ or }HH_{1}^{t_b}\mbox{ or } 

881:                      hh_{3}^{t-1}\mbox{ or } hh_{1}^{t-1} ] \\

882: \eeqn

883: (where $t_a,\ldots, t_d\in\{ t,t-1\}$ depend on the permutation $\phi^t$). 

884: Recall also that

885: \beqn{eq-hh1}

886:    hh_1^{t} &=& EN_1^{t}\mbox{ and not }CIR_1^{t} \\

887:    \label{eq-EN1}

888:    EN_1^t &=& en_1^{t-1} \\

889:    \label{eq-en1}

890:    en_1^{t-1} &=& WG_4^{t-1} \mbox{ or } WG_2^{t-1}. 

891: \eeqn

892: From\rf{eq-CIR4}:

893: \beq

894:    CIR_4^T=1\ \ \Rightarrow\ \ hh_1^{T-1}=0, 

895: \eeq

896: and then from\rf{eq-cir1} and\rf{eq-hh1}:

897: \beq

898:    hh_1^{T-1}=0\ \ \Rightarrow\ \ EN_1^{T-1}=0.

899: \eeq

900: Now by equations~(\ref{eq-EN1},~\ref{eq-en1}):

901: \beq

902:    EN_1^{T-1}=0, \ \Rightarrow\ 

903:    en_1^{T-2}=0\  \Rightarrow\  WG_4^{T-2}=0 \mbox{ and } WG_2^{T-2}=0,

904: \eeq

905: which contradicts equation\rf{eq-WG4}.

906: Thus, it must be that $wg_4^T=1$ for all times $T$, as we wanted to show.   

907: \epr

908: 

909: The following are now immediate conclusions from the model.

910: 

911: \bc{cor-var}

912: $CIR_4^T=0$ for all $T\geq0$, 

913: $en_1^T=1$ and $WG_4^T=1$ for all $T\geq1$.

914: $EN_1^T=1$, $ci_1^T=0$ and $hh_1^T=1$ for all $T\geq2$.

915: $CI_1^T=0$ and $HH_1^T=1$ for all $T\geq3$.

916: And finally, $CIA_1^T=CIR_1^T=0$ for all $T\geq4$.

917: \ec

918: 

919: \bc{cor-var2}

920: $ptc_1^T=0$ and $PTC_1^T=0$ for all $T\geq0$, and $CIR_2^T=0$ for all $T\geq3$. 

921: \ec

922: 

923: \comment{

924: \bpr

925: The equations for these three nodes are, respectively,

926: \beq

927:    ptc_1^{T} &=& CIA_1^T\mbox{ and not } EN_1^T \mbox{ and not } CIR_1^T\\

928:    PTC_1^{T} &=& ptc_1^{T-1} \mbox{ or }[PTC_1^{T-1} 

929:                            \mbox{ and not } HH_2^{t_a} \mbox{ and not } HH_4^{t_b}] \\

930:    CIR_2^T &=& CI_2^{t_a} \mbox{ and }PTC_2^{t_b}\mbox{ and not }

931:               hh_1^{t_c}\mbox{ and not } hh_3^{t_d}\mbox{ and not }

932:               HH_1^{t_e}\mbox{ and not } HH_3^{t_f},

933: \eeq

934: and the initial condition satisfies $PTC_1^0=0$, $ptc_1^0=0$.

935: >From Corollary~\ref{cor-var}, $EN_1^T=1$ for all $T\geq2$ implies

936: $ptc_1^T=0$ for $T\geq2$. But, since $ci_1^0=0$ implies $CI_1^1=0$ and

937: $CIA_1^{0,1}=0$, also $ptc_1^1=0$.

938: $hh_1^T=1$ for $T\geq2$ implies $CIR_2^T=0$ for $T\geq3$.

939: \epr

940: }%

941: 

942: In conclusion, from Proposition~\ref{pr-two-stst} it is clear that neither the no segmentation nor the 

943: two ectopic patterns are steady states of the system\rf{eq-syst} under assumptions A1-A2, because all of these 

944: states imply $wg_4=0$. In addition, Corollary~\ref{cor-var2} shows that the wild type variant, where $PTC$ 

945: is ubiquitous, cannot be a steady state. Also, any of the states with $wg_{1,2}=1$ is immediately prevented by 

946: the initial condition\rf{eq-wg12}. This leaves only the ``regular'' wild type or the mutant with broad

947: $wg$ stripes.

948: 

949: 

950: \subsection{Divergence from wild type}

951: 

952: Under assumptions A1-A2, divergence from the wild type pattern occurs if and only if the first permutation 

953: (in particular $\phi^1_{\tProt}$) is of a particular form. Thus, convergence (or divergence) to the wild 

954: type pattern is decided at the first iterate ($T=1$).

955: 

956: Recall that the wild type pattern requires {\it wingless} not to be expressed in the third cell ($wg_3=0$). 

957: The next Fact (proved in the Appendix) essentially says that a stable $wg_3=0$ induces the absence of both

958: {\it engrailed}, {\it hedgehog} in the second cell, as well as the absence of CIA$_3$, and maintains the 

959: expression of $PTC_3$. 

960: \bfc{fc-wg3=0} 

961: Assume $ptc_3^0=1$ and $en_2^0=0$.

962: \bit

963: \item[(a)] Let $T\geq1$. If $wg_3^{t}=0$ for all $0\leq t\leq T$, then 

964: \beq

965:    en_2^t=0, \ \ EN_2^t=0, && 0\leq t\leq T+2,\\

966:    hh_2^t=0, && 1\leq t\leq T+2,\\

967:    HH_2^t=0,  && 1\leq t\leq T+3, \\

968:    PTC_3^t=1, && 1\leq t\leq T+3,\ \mbox{ and }\\

969:    CIA_3^t=0, \ \ CIR_3^t=1, && 2\leq t\leq T+3.

970: \eeq

971: \item[(b)]

972: Furthermore, if $ci_3^0=0$, then also $CIA_3^1=0$ and part (a) holds

973: for any $T\geq0$.

974: \eit 

975: \efc

976: 

977: With the help of this Fact, we establish that $wg_3$ may become expressed only at the first iterate or else it

978: is never expressed. Thus the two timescale model provides a strong natural restriction on the formation of an

979: inviable state: if $wg_3^{1}=0$, then $wg_3^{T}=0$ for all $T\geq0$, implying that such trajectories will 

980: never converge to the broad striped pattern.

981: 

982: \bp{pr-wg3-T=1only}

983: Assume that the initial condition satisfies $wg_3^0=0$, $ptc_3^0=1$, $hh_{2,4}^0=0$, 

984: and $ci_3^0=1$. Then $wg_3^{T_1}=1$ and $wg_3^{T}=0$ for all $0\leq T<T_1$, only if $T_1=1$.

985: \ep

986: 

987: \bpr

988: To obtain $wg_3^{T}=1$ with $wg_3^{T-1}=0$ it is necessary that

989: \beq

990:    wg_3^T=CIA_3^T\mbox{ and not } CIR_3^T \ \ \Rightarrow\ \   

991:    CIA_3^{T}=1\ \mbox{ and } \ CIR_3^{T}=0.

992: \eeq

993: But, if $wg_3^{T}=0$ for $T=1$, then, by Fact~\ref{fc-wg3=0}, the activator $CIA_3$ is zero for $T=2,3,4$.

994: Then (by induction on $T$) expression of $wg_3$ is prevented at any later time.

995: \epr

996: 

997: 

998: In addition, it is possible to completely characterize the updating permutation ($\phi^1$) that leads  

999: to $wg_3^1=1$ and, as a consequence, exactly compute the probability of divergence (hence convergence) to

1000: the wild type steady state (Section~\ref{sec-probability}).

1001: 

1002: \bp{pr-wg3-T=1}

1003: Assume that assumptionts A1 and A2 hold. Assume that the initial condition satisfies 

1004: $wg_3^0=0$, $ptc_3^0=1$ and $hh_{2,4}^0=0$.

1005: \bit

1006: \item[(a)] If $ci_3^0=0$, then $wg_3^{1}=0$.

1007: \item[(b)] If $ci_3^0=1$, then $wg_3^{1}=1$ if and only if the permutation 

1008: $\phi^1$ satisfies the following sequence among the proteins $CI$, $CIA$, $CIR$ and $PTC$:  

1009: \beqn{eq-perm-wg3=1}

1010: \begin{array}{cccccc}

1011:     CIR_3 & CI_3 & & CIA_3  & & PTC_3,        \\

1012:     & & & & & \\ 

1013:           & CI_3 &   CIR_3  & CIA_3 & & PTC_3,  \\

1014:     & & & & & \\ 

1015:           & CI_3 & & CIA_3  & CIR_3 & PTC_3,

1016: \end{array}

1017: \eeqn

1018: while the other proteins may appear in any of the remaining slots.

1019: \eit

1020: \ep

1021: 

1022: \bpr

1023: Part (a) follows immediately from Fact~\ref{fc-wg3=0}(b).

1024: To prove part (b), we start by noticing that, because $SLP_{3}=1$ and $wg_3^0=0$, 

1025: \beq

1026:    wg_3^1= CIA_3^1 \mbox{ and not } CIR_3^1,

1027: \eeq

1028: so that

1029: \beq

1030:   wg_3^{1}=1\ \ \ \Leftrightarrow\ \ \  CIA_3^{1}=1 \mbox{ and } CIR_3^{1}=0.

1031: \eeq

1032: Following assumptions A1-A2, the model's equations for $CIA_3^1$ and $CIR_3^1$ are given by:

1033: \beq

1034:   CIA_3^1 &=& CI_3^{t_a} \mbox{ and }

1035:         [\mbox{not }PTC_3^{t_b} 

1036:          \mbox{ or } HH_{2}^{t_c}\mbox{ or }HH_{4}^{t_d}\mbox{ or } hh_{2}^0\mbox{ or } hh_{4}^0 ], \\

1037:   CIR_3^1 &=& CI_3^{s_a} \mbox{ and not } 

1038:         [\mbox{not }PTC_3^{s_b}

1039:          \mbox{ or } HH_{2}^{s_c}\mbox{ or }HH_{4}^{s_d}\mbox{ or } hh_{2}^0\mbox{ or } hh_{4}^0 ],

1040: \eeq

1041: where $t_a,\ldots,s_a\in\{0,1\}$ and depend on the permutation $\phi^1$.

1042: These expressions may be simplified by observing that: 

1043: (a) $hh_{2,4}^0=0$, and thus also

1044: (b) $HH_{2,4}^{0,1}=0$.

1045: Therefore,

1046: \beq

1047:   CIA_3^1 &=& CI_3^{t_a} \mbox{ and not } PTC_3^{t_b}, \\

1048:   CIR_3^1 &=& CI_3^{s_a} \mbox{ and } PTC_3^{s_b},

1049: \eeq

1050: The values for $CI_3^{0,1}$ and $PTC_3^{0,1}$ are determined by:

1051: \bit

1052: \item[1.] $CI_3^0=0$ and  $CI_3^1=ci_3^0=1$,

1053: \item[2.] $PTC_3^0=0$ and $PTC_3^1=ptc_3^0 \mbox{ or }[\cdots]=1$, since $ptc_3^0=1$,

1054: \eit

1055: and recall that both $CIA_i^0=0$ and $CIR_i^0=0$.

1056: Therefore, {\it it is necessary that $CI_3$ is updated before $CIA_3$ and  

1057: $PTC_3$ is updated after $CIA_3$ }, because otherwise $CIA_3^1=0$. 

1058: Finally, {\it $CIR_3$ must be updated before $PTC_3$}, because otherwise

1059: $CIR_3^1=1$. In other words: 

1060: \beq

1061:    t_a=1, \ \ t_b=0,\ \ s_a\in\{0,1\},\ \ s_b=0.

1062: \eeq 

1063: It is easy to see that any of the sequences\rf{eq-perm-wg3=1} is also sufficient to

1064: obtain $wg_3^{1}=1$.

1065: \epr

1066: 

1067: 

1068: Finally, we will show that whenever $wg_3$ becomes expressed at time $T=1$, it is afterwards periodically 

1069: expressed, every third step.  Such trajectories cannot converge to the wild type pattern.

1070: In other words, initial permutations of the form\rf{eq-perm-wg3=1} are not included in the basin of attraction 

1071: of the wild type pattern.

1072: 

1073: \bp{pr-mutant-conv}

1074: Assume $wg_4^0=1$, $ci_1^0=0$ and $ptc_1^0=0$. For any $T\geq1$, if $wg_3^T=1$, then $wg_3^{T+3}=1$.

1075: \ep

1076: 

1077: \bpr

1078: Recall that, by Proposition~\ref{pr-two-stst}, $wg_4^t=1$ for all $t\geq0$. 

1079: By Corollary~\ref{cor-var2}, $CIR_2^t=0$ for all $t\geq3$.

1080: 

1081: Now, pick any $T\geq1$ and assume that $wg_3^T=1$. Then

1082: \beq

1083:   WG_3^{T+1}=1\ \Rightarrow\ en_2^{T+1}=1 \ \Rightarrow\ EN_2^{T+2}=1

1084:   \ \Rightarrow\ hh_2^{T+2}=wg_3^T=1,

1085: \eeq

1086: where the last implication follows from Fact~\ref{fc-hh2}.

1087: Then (using either\rf{eq-ci34-T=0} or\rf{eq-ci34-T=1}) 

1088: \beq

1089:   CIA_3^{T+3} &=& \mbox{not }PTC_3^{t_a}\mbox{ or } HH_{2}^{t_b}\mbox{ or } hh_{2}^{T+2},\\

1090:   CIR_3^{T+3} &=& PTC_3^{s_a}\mbox{ and not } HH_{2}^{s_b}\mbox{ and not } hh_{2}^{T+2},

1091: \eeq

1092: (where $t_a,t_b,s_a,s_b\in\{ T+2,T+3\}$, and depend on the permutation $\phi^{T+3}$).

1093: So $hh_2^{T+2}=1$ implies

1094: \beq

1095:    CIA_3^{T+3}=1\ \ \mbox{ and }\ \     CIR_3^{T+3}=0,

1096: \eeq

1097: and therefore

1098: $

1099:    wg_3^{T+3}=1,

1100: $

1101: as we wanted to show.

1102: \epr

1103: 

1104: Whenever $wg_3$ is not expressed, some other nodes also stabilize, after the appropriate number 

1105: of iterations. These are summarized next.

1106: 

1107: \bc{cor-var3}

1108: Assume that $wg_3^t=0$ for all $t\geq0$. Then $WG_3^t=0$, $en_2^t=0$ for all $t\geq1$.   

1109: $EN_2^t=0$, $hh_2^t=0$ and $ci_2=1$ for all $t\geq2$. Finally, $HH_2^t=0$ and $CI_2=1$ for all $t\geq3$.

1110: \ec

1111: 

1112: 

1113: 

1114: \subsection{Probability of convergence to wild type}

1115: \label{sec-probability}

1116: 

1117: The wild type pattern is in fact an attractor for the asynchronous model: every trajectory which is not of 

1118: the form\rf{eq-perm-wg3=1} converges to the wild type pattern (see Appendix~\ref{sec-attractor}).

1119: The probability that this happens is therefore determined 

1120: by counting all the possible  states of the form\rf{eq-perm-wg3=1}:

1121: \beq

1122:   \mbox{Prob(wild type) } =1 - \frac{\mbox{\# permutations as in\rf{eq-perm-wg3=1}}}

1123:                                 {\mbox{Total \# permutations}} 

1124: \eeq

1125: Let $L$ be the number of protein nodes to be updated at each iterate (there are 9 proteins in each of 

1126: the four cells so $L=36$). Out of the $L$ proteins, only 4 need to satisfy one of particular 

1127: sequences\rf{eq-perm-wg3=1} in their relative positions. So let $M_L$ be the number of possible permutations 

1128: satisfying any of the sequences\rf{eq-perm-wg3=1}. Then

1129: \beq

1130:    \mbox{Prob(wild type) } = 1 - \frac{M_L\ (L-4)!}{L!}.

1131: \eeq

1132: The next Proposition is proved in the Appendix and shows that, in fact, this is a constant number, 

1133: independent of $L$. That is, 

1134: \beq

1135:    \mbox{Prob(wild type) }=0.875.

1136: \eeq

1137: 

1138: \bp{pr-prob}

1139: For any $L\geq4$,

1140: \beq

1141:    M_{\tL}= \frac{3!}{2}\ \sum_{P=4}^{L}\;\left( 

1142:                                    \begin{array}{c}

1143:                                       P-1 \\ 3

1144:                                    \end{array}  

1145:                                \right)

1146:           =\frac{1}{2}\ \sum_{j=1}^{L-3}\; j(j+1)(j+2)    

1147: \eeq

1148: and

1149: \beq

1150:    \frac{M_{\tL}\ (L-4)!}{L!} = \frac{1}{8}.

1151: \eeq

1152: \ep

1153: 

1154: 

1155: 

1156: \section{A Markov chain process}

1157: \label{sec-markov}

1158: 

1159: As a Boolean model, there are only a finite set, say $\S$, of distinct states

1160: (in the total state space $\{0,1\}^N$) reachable by the system. 

1161: Starting from any state $\S_a\in\S$, each permutation $\phi$ of 

1162: $\{1,\ldots,N\}$ takes the system to some other state $\S_b\in\S$.

1163: It is possible to theoretically identify all the distinct intermediate

1164: and final states of the system as well as all the possible transitions

1165: after one iteration. 

1166: Thus the asynchronous algorithm consisting of the $N$ node 

1167: functions\rf{eq-inode} together with assumptions (A1), (A2) and (A3)

1168: may be characterized as a Markov chain process, by identifying the $d$

1169: distinct states

1170: \beq

1171:   \S=\{\S_1,\S_2,\ldots,\S_d\},

1172: \eeq

1173: and the $d\times d$ transition matrix $P$, where 

1174: \beq

1175:   P_{ij}=\mbox{ probability of a transition from state $\S_i$

1176:     to state $\S_j$}.

1177: \eeq

1178: The probabilities $P_{ij}$ are simply the fraction of the total

1179: number of  permutations that (in one iterate) transform the state 

1180: $\S_i$ into state $\S_j$. The matrix $P$ is a stochastic matrix, since

1181: all its rows add up to 1.

1182: A state $\S_a$ with the property that all permutations leave the state

1183: unchanged (that is, $P_{aa}=1$ and $P_{aj}=0$ for $j\neq0$) is

1184: called an {\em absorption state} of the Markov chain, and it is also 

1185: a steady-state of system\rf{eq-inode}.

1186: In the asynchronous model there are only two absorption states,

1187: corresponding to the wild type and broad {\em wingless} stripe mutant patterns, 

1188: as described above.

1189: Isolating the two rows and columns that correspond to these

1190: absorption states, the transition matrix may be partitioned as

1191: \beq

1192:    P=\left[\begin{array}{cc}

1193:              P_a & 0 \\

1194:              R_a & \bar P 

1195:            \end{array} \right],

1196: \eeq

1197: where $\bar P$ is of size $(d-2)\times(d-2)$. It is a well know 

1198: result(see any standard book on probability theory, for instance~\cite{feller}) 

1199: that $I-\bar P$ is an invertible matrix, and 

1200: \beq

1201:    \left[\begin{array}{c}

1202:           \bar T_1 \\ \bar T_2 \\ \vdots \\ \bar T_{d-2}

1203:          \end{array}\right]

1204:    =(I-\bar P)^{-1} \left[\begin{array}{c}

1205:                          1 \\ 1 \\ \vdots \\ 1

1206:                      \end{array}\right],

1207: \eeq

1208: or

1209: $

1210:    \bar T_i = 1 + \sum_{j=1}^{d-2}\ p_{ij}\;\bar T_j. 

1211: $

1212: The values $\bar T_i$ provide an estimated time for absorption when the chain starts from state $\S_i$ 

1213: (if $a$ is an absorption state, then $\bar T_a=0$).

1214: %

1215: In Figure~\ref{fig-diag}, a schematic diagram of transitions is shown, together with probabilities and 

1216: estimated times for absorption. This diagram was obtained from a simulation starting with the initial 

1217: wild type pattern (observed at stage 8 of the embrionic development), and following the assumptions (A1)-(A3), 

1218: as well as the additional

1219: \bit

1220: \item[(A4)] Each protein or gene is updated simultaneously in the four cells,

1221: \eit

1222: meaning that there is no cell-to-cell variation in the duration of molecular processes.

1223: In this case, the total number of possible permutations is a manageable $7!\times5!=604800$:

1224: \beq

1225:    \Phi=\{\phi=(\phi_{\tProt},\phi_{\tmRNA}): & & 

1226:          \phi_{\tProt} \mbox{ is a permutation of $\{1,2,3,4,5,6,7\}$ },\\ 

1227:         && \phi_{\tmRNA} \mbox{ is a permutation of $\{1,2,3,4,5\}$ }\}

1228: \eeq

1229: The total number of distinct states of the Markov chain (under assumptions (A1)-(A4)) 

1230: is $d=48$. The transition probabilities matrix was computed exactly, by counting 

1231: all the $7!\times5!$ transitions from each of the 48 states.

1232: 

1233: It is clear from this diagram that the decision between convergence to the wild type or the mutant patterns 

1234: is indeed decided at the first iteration, in agreement with Propositions~\ref{pr-two-stst} and~\ref{pr-wg3-T=1only}.

1235: Furthermore, the diagram shows the possibility of periodic oscillations (of period at least three) in the 

1236: mutant branch (see also Proposition~\ref{pr-mutant-conv}). 

1237: Although in practice the probability of a limit cycle is very small, this prevents (theoretical) convergence 

1238: to the mutant state, and considerably increases the absorption times to the mutant state. 

1239: The robustness of the two timescale model is illustrated by the fast convergence to the wild type pattern 

1240: (expected time to convergence is 4 steps), contrasted with the long and oscillation-strewn path toward the 

1241: broad striped pattern (expected time to convergence is 15 steps).

1242: 

1243: \begin{figure}[htbp]

1244: %first number is horizontal scale, second is vertical

1245: \centerline{\scalebox{0.7}[0.7]{\includegraphics{fig5.eps} }}

1246: %\vspace{-10in}

1247: \caption{Robustness of the regulatory network modeled with the two-timescale algorithm.

1248: There are 48 states reachable from the wild type initial state.

1249: The arrows are labeled by the transition probabilities between states

1250: (if unlabeled, the  probabilities are 1), and the expected times to absorption

1251: into the  corresponding steady state are indicated between square brackets.}

1252: \label{fig-diag}

1253: \end{figure}

1254: 

1255: 

1256: \section{Identifying minimal pre-patterns}

1257: 

1258: A necessary condition for convergence to the wild type is that $ptc_3^0=1$.

1259: Otherwise the trajectory immediately fails to enter the basin of attraction of the

1260: will type state:

1261: 

1262: \bfc{fc-wg3=1} 

1263: Assume $ptc_3^0=0$. Then $wg_3^T=1$, for some $T\in\{1,2,3\}$.

1264: \efc

1265: 

1266: \bpr

1267: Note that $ptc_3^0=0$ implies $PTC_3^1=0$.

1268: Using\rf{eq-en-hh34} and\rf{eq-ci34-T=0},\rf{eq-ci34-T=1}, 

1269: the equations for $ptc_3$ and $CIA_3$ simplify to

1270: \beq

1271:    CIA_3^t &=& \mbox{not }CIR_3^t=

1272:       \mbox{not }PTC_3^{t_a}\mbox{ or }HH_2^{t_b}\mbox{ or }hh_2^{t-1}, \ \ \ t\geq\tau \\

1273:    ptc_3^t &=& CIA_3^t\mbox{ and not }CIR_3^t=CIA_3^t,\ \ \ t\geq1 \\

1274:    PTC_3^t &=& ptc_3^{t-1} \mbox{ or }

1275:       [PTC_3^{t-1}\mbox{ and not }HH_2^{t_a}\mbox{ and not }hh_2^{t-1},\ \ \ t\geq1,

1276: \eeq

1277: where $\tau=2$ (respectively, $\tau=3$), if $ci_3^0=1$ (respectively, $ci_3^0=0$). 

1278: Consider first the case $ci_3^0=1$. 

1279: The activator protein will be turned on either at the first or second iterations:

1280: $CIA_3$ may become activated at $t=1$ because $PTC_3^1=0$, (if the permutation $\phi^1$

1281: is such that $CI_3$ is updated before $CIA_3$). If $CIA_3$ is not actived at $t=1$, then

1282: it certainly is actived at $t=2$ (because $CIA_3^1=0$ implies $ptc_3^1=0$ and $PTC_3^2=0$).

1283: A similar argument shows that $CIR_3^{1,2}=0$.

1284: 

1285: Consider next the case $ci_3^0=0$: we have $CIA_3^1=CIR_3^1=0$, and $CIA_3$ is turned on at the 

1286: second or third iterations, by a similar argument as before.

1287: Therefore, the {\em wingless} gene is also expressed after $CIA_3$, at $T=1,2$ or 3.

1288: \epr

1289: 

1290: Another necessary condition for convergence to wild type, is that 

1291: \beq

1292:    wg_4^0=1\ \mbox{ or }\ en_1^0=1\ \mbox{ or }\ ci_4^0=1.

1293: \eeq

1294: Otherwise, the trajectories cannot converge to the wild type nor to the mutant steady states,

1295: In this case, the only possible steady state is a ``lethal'' state, where expression of 

1296: $PTC$, $ci$, $CIA$ and $CIR$ is ubiqitous and all others are absent.

1297: 

1298: \bp{fc-PTC1}

1299: Assume $wg_{3,4}^0=0$, $en_1^0=0$, $ptc_3^0=1$ and $ci_{3,4}^0=0$. Then 

1300: \bit

1301: \item[(a)] $wg_3=0$, for all $t\geq0$.

1302: \item[(b)] $PTC_1^t=1$ for all $t\geq4$.

1303: \item[(c)] $wg_4=0$ for infinitely many $t$. 

1304: \eit

1305: \ep

1306: 

1307: \bpr

1308: Part (a) follows from Fact~\ref{fc-wg3=0}(b), for any $T\geq0$:

1309: \beq

1310:    wg_3^t=0,\ \ t\leq T \ \ \Rightarrow\ \ CIA_3=0,\ \ 0<t\leq T+3.

1311: \eeq

1312: Thus, by induction, $wg_3^t=0$ for $t\geq0$.

1313: 

1314: Part (a) and Fact~\ref{fc-hh2} imply $hh_2^t=0$ and $HH_2^t=0$ for all $t>0$, so that 

1315: \beq

1316:    ptc_1^t &=& CIA_1^t\mbox{ and not }CIR_1^t\mbox{ and not }EN_1^t \\

1317:    PTC_1^t &=& ptc_1^{t-1}\mbox{ or }PTC_1^{t-1},\ \ t\geq1 \\

1318:    CIA_1^t &=& CI_1^{t_a}\mbox{ and not }PTC_1^{t_b},\ \ t\geq1.

1319: \eeq

1320: If $ptc_1^0=1$, then it is clear that $PTC_1^t=1$ for all $t\geq1$. 

1321: Consider the case $ptc_1^0=0$. Then $PTC_1=0$ as long as $ptc_1=0$.  

1322: Note that $ci_4^0=0$ implies $CI_4^1=0$, $CIA_4^1=0$ and also $wg_4^1=0$. 

1323: Then $wg_4^{0,1}=0$ and $en_1^{0,1}=0$ imply $EN_1^{1,2,3}=0$ and $CI_1^{2,3,4}=1$.

1324: So, either at $T=2$ or $T=3$, we will have $CIA_1^T=1$, and therefore also 

1325: $ptc_1^T=1$ and $PTC_1^{T+1}=1$.

1326: Thus, $PTC_4^t=1$ for $t\geq4$, proving part (b).

1327: 

1328: Finally, to argure by contradiction, suppose that $wg_4^t=1$ for $t\geq T_a$. Then

1329: by Corollary~\ref{cor-var2}, $PTC_1^t=1$ for $t\geq T_b> T_a$, which contradicts part (b).

1330: Hence, $wg_4$ cannot become permanently on.

1331: \epr

1332: 

1333: 

1334: By Proposition~\ref{pr-two-stst}, together with Fact~\ref{fc-wg3=0}(b), a 

1335: {\em sufficient} condition for convergence to wild type is

1336: \beq

1337:    wg_4^0=1,\ \ ptc_3^0=1,\ \ ptc_1^0=0,\ \ ci_{1,3}^0=0. 

1338: \eeq

1339: Another {\em sufficient} condition (which allows the presence 

1340: of {\em cubitus} in the third cell) is 

1341: \beq

1342:     wg_4^0=1,\ \ ptc_3^0=1,\ \ PTC_3^0=1.

1343: \eeq

1344: The argument in the proof of Proposition~\ref{pr-wg3-T=1}, 

1345: shows that, if $PTC_3^0=1$ then $wg_3^1=0$. Then, by 

1346: Proposition~\ref{pr-wg3-T=1only}, it follows that $wg_3^t=0$

1347: for all times.

1348: 

1349: In conclusion, while the wild type initial state allows for an ambiguity in the final states, we find that a remarkably 

1350: minimal prepattern, consisting of $wg_4$ and $ptc_3$, is sufficient to guarantee the convergence to the wild 

1351: type steady state. In other words, the initiation of two genes in two cells is enough to compensate for 

1352: initiation delays in any and all other genes, irrespectively of the variations in individual synthesis and 

1353: decay processes. This suggests a remarkable error correcting ability of the segment polarity gene control 

1354: network.

1355: 

1356: 

1357: \section{Conclusions}

1358: In summary, we proposed  an intuitive and practical way of introducing stochasticity in

1359: qualitative models of gene regulation. We explored three possible ways of incorporating

1360: the variability of transcription, translation, post-translational modification and decay

1361: processes (see Table \ref{table_comp_alg} for a comparison between

1362: the synchronous and three asynchronous algorithms). Applying our methods on a previously introduced

1363: model of the {\it Drosophila} segment polarity genes gave us new insights into

1364: the dynamics and function of the interactions among the segment polarity genes

1365: and, through it, into the robustness of the embryonic segmentation process.

1366: Our results suggest that unrestricted variability in synthesis/decay/transformation 

1367: timescales can lead to a divergence from the wild 

1368: type development process, with an expected divergence probability of $45\%$. On the other hand,

1369: if the duration of post-translational transformations is consistently less than the duration

1370: of transcription, translation and mRNA/protein half-lives, the wild type steady

1371: state will be achieved with a high probability, despite significant variability

1372: in individual process durations. We find that a remarkably sparse

1373: prepattern is sufficient to ensure the convergence to the wild type steady state of these genes. 

1374: This dual behavior, robustness to changes in the initial state

1375: but fragility with respect to temporal variability, is reminiscent of Highly Optimized Tolerance,

1376: a feature of highly structured, non-generic complex systems with robust, yet fragile external

1377: dynamics~\cite{cd02}. Similar robust-yet-fragile features have also been found in the 

1378: of structure of diverse networks~\cite{jtaob00,jmbo01,ajb00}. 

1379: 

1380: 

1381: 

1382: \begin{table}[htb]

1383: \caption{Comparison of synchronous and asynchronous algorithms.}

1384: \label{table_comp_alg}

1385: \centerline{

1386: \begin{tabular}{lllll}

1387: \hline

1388: & Synchronous & Totally Asynchronous & Random Order & Two-timescale\\

1389: \hline\hline

1390: Assume & Nodes are updated  & The time between &

1391: Each node is  & In each time \\

1392:   &  at multiples  &  updates is   &

1393:  updated at a randomly   &  interval proteins are\\

1394:  & of the unit  & perturbed in a  & selected point of the &  updated first, \\

1395: & time interval. & range $\pm \epsilon$. & unit time 

1396: interval. & then mRNAs.\\

1397: \hline

1398: Update & $T^k = k$  & $T^k = T^{k-1}+1+\epsilon r^k$ & $T^k = k-1+\frac 1 N \phi^k$ 

1399: & $T^k = k-1+\frac 1 N \phi^k_{tt} $\\

1400: &  &  & $\phi^k$ - node permutation & $\phi^k_{tt} \in (\phi_{\tProt}^k,\phi_{\tmRNA}^k)$\\ 

1401: \hline

1402: Pros & Correctly identifies & Allows for unlimited & Does not depend & Allows separation 

1403:  \\

1404:  &  all steady states. & variability in & on any perturbation  & of post-translational\\

1405:  & Can be solved & process durations. & parameter $\epsilon$. &  and pre-translational

1406:  \\

1407:  & analytically. & & &  processes.\\

1408: \hline

1409: Cons & Dynamics is & \multicolumn{2}{l}{Can have unrealistically short transcription} & 

1410: Only useful when \\

1411: & unrealistic. & \multicolumn{2}{l}{and translation times.} & process durations \\

1412: & & & & can be separated.\\

1413: \hline

1414: Results & Prepattern errors  & \multicolumn{2}{l}{Divergence from the wild type process is 

1415: possible.} & Development is stable if \\

1416: & can be corrected. & \multicolumn{2}{l}{Cause: imbalance between two 

1417: transcription factors.} & PTC 

1418: is prepatterned.\\

1419: \hline

1420: \end{tabular}}

1421: \end{table}

1422: 

1423: All our algorithms concur in suggesting that

1424: the divergence from wild type can be attributed to an imbalance between the

1425: two opposing Cubitus Interruptus transcription factors (CIA, CIR) in the posterior half of the 

1426: parasegment. Thus the complementary regulation and pattern of these opposing transcription

1427: factors (Aza-Blanc and Kornberg 1999) is a vital requirement for the correct functioning

1428: of the segment polarity gene network.

1429: The totally asynchronous algorithm predicts that  perturbations to the 

1430: post-translational modification of Cubitus Interruptus can have effects as severe 

1431: as mutations: a transient overexpression of CIR leads to the pattern 

1432: with no segmentation, while transient expression of CIA and not CIR leads to the broad striped pattern.

1433: With the two timescale algorithm we find that the condition for the divergence from the wild type

1434: pattern is that, in the third cell of the parasegment, the post-translational modification

1435: of CI precedes the synthesis of the Patched protein. The biological realization

1436: of this condition appears unlikely, since PTC is documented as being ubiquitously expressed during cellularization 

1437: (stage 5)~\cite{tnmi93}, while the post-translational modification

1438: of CI requires SMO that is only weakly expressed until stage 8~\cite{azn00}. Our model

1439: predicts that if for any reason the PTC protein is absent in the period when

1440: the pair-rule proteins decay and the regulation between the segment polarity genes

1441: starts, the wild type expression pattern is unreachable." 

1442: 

1443: 

1444: Our methods combine the benefits of discrete-state models with a continuum in timescales. In 

1445: the absence of quantitative information, we considered every possible timescale or update order, 

1446: but as the two-timescale model demonstrates, existing information can be easily incorporated.

1447: We were able to describe the system in a rigorous mathematical way, to 

1448: identify the relatively few types of behavior possible in the system (the attractors in 

1449: state space) and to

1450: theoretically prove the convergence toward these states. Our results underscore that 

1451: predictive mathematical modeling is possible despite the scarcity of quantitative information on gene 

1452: regulatory processes.

1453: 

1454: 

1455: \section*{Acknowledgements} 

1456: The work of M.C. was supported in part by NIH Grants P20 GM64375 and Aventis. 

1457: R.A. gratefully acknowledges an Alfred P. Sloan Research Fellowship. 

1458: The work of E.D.S. was supported in part by NSF Grant CCR-0206789 and

1459: NIH Grants P20 GM64375 and R01 GM46383.

1460: 

1461: 

1462: \appendix

1463: \section{Additional Proofs}

1464: 

1465: {\em Proof of Fact~\ref{fc-CIR1}:}

1466: For $T=0$, the statement follows directly from the model's equations and by using the

1467: assumptions A1-A2 repeatedly:

1468: \beq

1469:   WG_4^{1}=1,\ \ en_1^1=1,\ \ EN_1^{2}=1, 

1470: \eeq

1471: as well as 

1472: \beq

1473:   ci_1^{0,2}=0,\ \ CI_1^{0,1,3}=0,\ \ CIA_1^{0,1}=0,\ \ CIR_1^{0,1}=0,\ \ PTC_1^{0,1}=0.

1474: \eeq

1475: We have (using\rf{eq-en-hh34}) 

1476: \beq

1477:   ptc_1^{t} &=& CIA_1^{t}\mbox{ and not }CIR_1^{t}\mbox{ and not }EN_1^{t} \\

1478:   PTC_1^{t} &=& ptc_1^{t-1}\mbox{ or }[PTC_1^{t_b}\mbox{ and not }HH_2^{t_c}],\\

1479:   CIR_1^{t} &=& CI_1^{t_a}\mbox{ and }PTC_1^{t_b}\mbox{ and not }HH_2^{t_c}\mbox{ and not }hh_2^{t-1}, 

1480: \eeq

1481: so that we conclude

1482: \beq

1483:   ptc_1^{0,1,2}=0,\ \ PTC_1^{2,3}=0,\ \ CIR_1^{2,3}=0.

1484: \eeq

1485: We next prove the Fact by induction. First note that, for any $t\geq0$:

1486: \beq

1487:    wg_4^{t}=1 \ \Rightarrow\ WG_4^{t+1}=1 \ \Rightarrow\ en_1^{t+1}=1

1488:    \ \Rightarrow\ EN_1^{t+2}=1

1489: \eeq

1490: and this implies 

1491: \beqn{eq-ciCI1}

1492:    ci_1^{t+2}=0 \ \Rightarrow\ CI_1^{t+3}=0. 

1493: \eeqn

1494: Now assume that the Fact holds for some $T\geq1$ and that 

1495: \beq

1496:      wg_4^{t}=1,\ \   0\leq t\leq T.

1497: \eeq

1498: By the induction hypothesis, we know that

1499: \beq

1500:      CI_1^{t}=0, \ 3\leq t\leq T+2,\ \ \mbox{ and }\ \ CIR_1^{t}=0, \ 0\leq t\leq T+2,

1501: \eeq

1502: By\rf{eq-ciCI1}, $wg_4^T=1$ implies $CI_1^{T+3}=0$, and this together

1503: with $CI_1^{T+2}=0$ also guarantees that $CIR_1^{T+3}=0$, as we wanted to show.

1504: \qed

1505: 

1506: 

1507: {\em Proof of Fact~\ref{fc-wg3=0}:}

1508: To prove part (a), assume that $wg_3^{t}=0$ for all $0\leq t<T$, with $T\geq1$.

1509: Since $en_2^0=0$, then $EN_2^{0,1}=0$ and $hh_2^1=0$, $HH_2^{1,2}=0$. 

1510: For $t\geq3$ apply Fact~\ref{fc-hh2} to obtain

1511: the desired value for $hh_2$ and $HH_2$.

1512: Note that $ptc_3^0=1$ implies $PTC_3^1=1$ and, together with

1513: $HH_2^{1,2}=0$, also $PTC_3^2=1$; then the value of $PTC_3$ 

1514: follows from Fact~\ref{fc-PTC3}.

1515: For $T\geq2$, and using\rf{eq-en-hh34} and\rf{eq-ci34-T=1}), we have 

1516: \beq

1517:   CIA_3^t &=&\mbox{not }PTC_3^{t_b}\mbox{ or } HH_{2}^{t_c}\mbox{ or } hh_{2}^{t-1} \\

1518:   CIR_3^t &=& PTC_3^{s_b}\mbox{ and not } HH_{2}^{s_c}\mbox{ and not } hh_{2}^{t-1}

1519: \eeq

1520: so, the values for $hh_2$, $HH_2$ and $PTC_3$, indeed imply that

1521: $CIA_3^t=0$ and $CIR_3^t=1$, for $2\leq t\leq T+3$. 

1522: 

1523: To prove part (b), note that if $ci_3^0=0$, then also $ci_3^{0,1}=0$ and hence $CIA_3^1=0$.

1524: But now $CIA_3^1=0$ together with $wg_3^0=0$ immediately imply that

1525: $wg_3^1=0$, and therefore, the results in part (a) are valid for all $T\geq0$.

1526: \qed

1527: 

1528: \bfc{fc-hh2}

1529: \beq

1530:   hh_2^{T+2}=HH_2^{T+3}=wg_3^T\mbox{ and not} CIR_2^{T+2},\

1531:   \mbox{ for all }\ T\geq0.

1532: \eeq

1533: In particular, if $CIR_2^t=0$ for all $t\geq3$, then

1534: $hh_2^{T+2}=HH_2^{T+3}=wg_3^T$, for all $T\geq1$.

1535: \efc

1536: 

1537: \bpr

1538: Given any $t\geq0$ it is easy to see that

1539: \beq

1540:    WG_3^{t+1} &=& wg_3^t   \\

1541:    en_2^{t+1} &=& WG_1^{t+1} \mbox{ or } WG_3^{t+1} \equiv WG_3^{t+1}, \\

1542:    EN_2^{t+2} &=& en_2^{t+1}, \\

1543:    hh_2^{t+2} &=& EN_2^{t+2} \mbox{ and not } CIR_2^{t+2}, \\

1544:    HH_2^{t+3} &=& hh_2^{t+2},

1545: \eeq 

1546: where the equation for $en_2^{t+1}$ follows from\rf{eq-wg12}.

1547: \epr

1548: 

1549: \bfc{fc-PTC3}

1550: $PTC_3^T=1$ and $PTC_3^{T+1}=0$, for some $T>0$, only if $wg_3^{t}=1$ for some 

1551: $t\in\{T-3,T-2\}$ (chosen according to the permutation $\phi^{T-2})$.

1552: 

1553: %% To write this fact as a necessay and sufficient condition:

1554: %$PTC_3^T=1$ and $PTC_3^{T+1}=0$, for some $T>0$, if and only if 

1555: %$ptc_3^T$ and  $CIR_2^{t_a-1}=0$ and $wg_3^{t_a-3}=1$ for some 

1556: %$t_a\in\{T,T+1\}$

1557: \efc

1558: 

1559: \bpr

1560: To see this, simply notice that

1561: \beq

1562:    PTC_3^{T+1} &=& ptc_3^T \mbox{ or }[PTC_3^{T} \mbox{ and not } HH_2^{t_a} \mbox{ and not } HH_4^{t_b}] \\

1563:                &=& ptc_3^T \mbox{ or }[PTC_3^{T} \mbox{ and not }

1564:      HH_2^{t_a}]\\

1565:                &=& ptc_3^T \mbox{ or }[PTC_3^{T} (\mbox{ and not }

1566: wg_3^{t_a-3}\mbox{ or } CIR_2^{t_a-1}] 

1567: \eeq

1568: because from\rf{eq-en-hh34} $HH_4^{T}=0$, and by Fact~\ref{fc-hh2}. 

1569: Note that $t_a\in\{T,T+1\}$, depending on the permutation $\phi^{T+1}$.

1570: So, for $PTC_3$ to vanish it is necessary that both $ptc_3^T=0$ and

1571: $wg_3^{t_a-3}=1$.

1572: \epr

1573: 

1574: \section{Attractiveness of the wild type pattern}

1575: \label{sec-attractor}

1576: 

1577: Assuming that the trajectory is not of the form\rf{eq-perm-wg3=1}, the only accessible steady state is the 

1578: wild type. In this case, to establish convergence of the trajectory, it is enough to show that each node 

1579: attains a constant value after a finite number of iterates.

1580: And in fact, from Propositions~\ref{pr-two-stst},~\ref{pr-wg3-T=1only} and 

1581: Corollaries~\ref{cor-var},~\ref{cor-var2}, all the nodes become fixed  after at most $t$ iterates, as indicated:

1582: \beq

1583:    wg_{1,2}=0,\ \ WG_{1,2}=0,\ \ t\geq0,  & & \mbox{~\rf{eq-wg12}} \\

1584:    wg_4=1,\ \ WG_4=1,\ \ t\geq1,          & & \mbox{ Proposition~\ref{pr-two-stst}}\\

1585:    wg_3=0,\ \ WG_3=0,\ \ t\geq1,          & & \mbox{ Proposition~\ref{pr-wg3-T=1only}}\\

1586:    en_1=1,\ \ EN_1=1,\ \ t\geq2,          & & \mbox{ Corollary~\ref{cor-var}} \\

1587:    en_2=0,\ \ EN_2=0,\ \ t\geq2,          & & \mbox{ Corollary~\ref{cor-var3}} \\

1588:    en_{3,4}=0,\ \ EN_{3,4}=0,\ \ t\geq0,  & & \mbox{~\rf{eq-en-hh34}} \\

1589:    hh_1=1,\ \ HH_1=1,\ \ t\geq3,          & & \mbox{ Corollary~\ref{cor-var}} \\

1590:    hh_2=0,\ \ HH_2=0,\ \ t\geq3,          & & \mbox{ Corollary~\ref{cor-var3}} \\

1591:    hh_{3,4}=0,\ \ HH_{3,4}=0,\ \ t\geq0,  & & \mbox{~\rf{eq-en-hh34}}

1592: \eeq

1593: \beq

1594:    ci_1=0,\ \ CI_1=0,\ \ t\geq3,          & & \mbox{ Corollary~\ref{cor-var}} \\

1595:    ci_2=1,\ \ CI_2=1,\ \ t\geq3,          & & \mbox{ Corollary~\ref{cor-var3}} \\

1596:    ci_{3,4}=1,\ \ CI_{3,4}=1,\ \ t\geq2,  & & \mbox{~\rf{eq-ci34-T=0},~\rf{eq-ci34-T=1}}  

1597: \eeq

1598: \beq

1599:    ptc_1=0,\ \ PTC_1=0,\ \ t\geq0,        & & \mbox{ Corollary~\ref{cor-var}} \\

1600:    CIA_1=0,\ \ CIR_1=0,\ \ t\geq4,        & & \mbox{ Corollary~\ref{cor-var}} \\

1601:    CIA_3=0,\ \ CIR_3=1,\ \ t\geq2,        & & \mbox{ Fact~\ref{fc-wg3=0}} \\

1602:    ptc_3=0,\ \ PTC_3=1,\ t\geq1,     & & \mbox{ Fact~\ref{fc-wg3=0}} \\

1603:    CIA_2=1,\ \ CIR_2=0,\ \ t\geq4,        & & \ CI_2=1 \\

1604:    ptc_2=1,\ \ PTC_2=1,\ \ t\geq5,        & & \ CIA_2=1,\ \ CIR_2=0,\ \ EN_2=0 \\

1605:    CIA_4=1,\ \ CIR_4=0,\ \ t\geq3,        & & \ wg_4=1 \\

1606:    ptc_4=1,\ \ PTC_4=1,\ \ t\geq5,        & & \ CIA_4=1,\ \ CIR_4=0.       

1607: \eeq

1608: This is indeed a complete characterization of the wild type steady state.

1609: 

1610: {\it Proof of Proposition~\ref{pr-prob}:}

1611: Let $P$, $A$, $C$ and $R$ ($\leq L$) denote the positions of $PTC_3$, $CIA_3$,

1612: $CI_3$ and $CIR_3$, respectively. Then, from\rf{eq-perm-wg3=1} it is

1613: easy to see that

1614: \beq

1615:    P\in\{4,5,6,\ldots,L\},\ \ 

1616:    A\in\{2,3,4,\ldots,P-1\},\ \ 

1617:    C\in\{1,2,3,\ldots,A-1\},\ \

1618:    R\in\{1,\ldots,P-1\}\setminus\{P,A,C\}.

1619: \eeq

1620: To derive a formula for $M$, we note that, for each pair of values

1621: $P$, $A$, the number of possible combinations of $C$ and $R$ is:

1622: \beq

1623:    \mbox{--- --- --- --- A --- R --- --- P}: &&  \ \ (A-1)(P-1-A)\\ 

1624:       \\

1625:    \mbox{--- R --- --- A  --- --- --- --- P}: && \  \  (A-1)(A-2),\\ 

1626: \eeq

1627: respectively for sequences of the form $CARP$ (top), or $CRAP$ and

1628: $RCAP$ (bottom). Therefore, summing over all posible $A$ and $P$:

1629: \beq

1630:    M_{\tL} &=& \sum_{P=4}^{L} \sum_{A=2}^{P-1} \ [(A-1)(P-1-A) + (A-1)(A-2)] \\

1631:     &=& \sum_{P=4}^{L} \sum_{A=2}^{P-1} \ (A-1)(P-3) \\

1632:     &=& \frac{1}{2}\sum_{P=4}^{L}\ (P-3)(P-2)(P-1) \\

1633:     &=&  \frac{1}{2}\sum_{j=1}^{L-3}\ j(j+1)(j+2).

1634: \eeq

1635: Now, for $L=4$,

1636: \beq

1637:    \frac{M_{\tL}\ (L-4)!}{L!}=\frac{1}{2}\;3!\ \frac{0!}{4!}=\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{4}=\frac{1}{8}. 

1638: \eeq

1639: Assume now that the equality is true for $L-1$:

1640: \beq

1641:    \frac{M_{\mbox{\tiny $L-1$}}\ (L-5)!}{(L-1)!}=\frac{1}{8}.

1642: \eeq

1643: Then

1644: \beq

1645:    M_{\tL} &=& M_{\mbox{\tiny $L-1$}} + \frac{1}{2}(L-3)(L-2)(L-1) \\

1646:            &=& \frac{1}{8}\frac{(L-1)!}{(L-5)!} +(\frac{1}{2}L-3)(L-2)(L-1) \\

1647:           &=& \frac{1}{8}(L-1)(L-2)(L-3)(L-4) +(\frac{1}{2}L-3)(L-2)(L-1) \\

1648:           &=& (L-1)(L-2)(L-3)\left[\frac{1}{8}(L-4)+\frac{1}{2}\right] \\

1649:           &=& (L-1)(L-2)(L-3)\left[\frac{1}{8}L\right]

1650:               =\frac{1}{8}\;\frac{L!}{(L-4)!},

1651: \eeq  

1652: just as we wanted to show.

1653: \qed

1654: 

1655: 

1656: 

1657: \section{State aggregation in the Markov chain}

1658: The tables below show the complete transition probabilities $p_{ij}$

1659: (when not indicated, the transition probabilities are equal to 1).

1660: The states numbered {\em 3} and {\em 44} denote, respectively, 

1661: the wild type and the mutant state. The initial condition was

1662: numbered {\em 48}.

1663: The first table shows the complete transition probabilities at step 1, 

1664: from the wild type initial condition.

1665: 

1666: Thus the probability shown in the diagram for the transition from

1667: the initial state to the aggregated state \fbox{{\em 1\ \ 6}} was

1668: obtained by adding $p_{48,1}+p_{48,6}=0.1667+0.0417=0.2084$.

1669: A more complex aggregation formula was used for the transition

1670: \beq

1671:   \mbox{\fbox{{\em 10\ \ 12 }} $\ \to\ $ \fbox{{\em 16\ \ 22}}}:

1672: \ \ \ \ 

1673:  & &   \frac{1}{2}(p_{10,16}+p_{10,22})

1674:       +\frac{1}{2}(p_{12,16}+p_{12,22}) \\

1675:  &=& \frac{1}{2}(0.2083+0.0417+0.3+0.0333)=0.29165\approx0.29. 

1676: \eeq

1677: The normalization by $1/2$ is justified by the fact that the

1678: transition from {\em 9} and {\em 30} to either {\em 10} or {\em 12} is the same.

1679: 

1680:  

1681: \vspace{3mm}

1682: \begin{center}

1683: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|}

1684: \hline

1685:   \multicolumn{6}{|c|}

1686:   {From initial wild type state to:} \\ 

1687: \hline 

1688:   {\em 1} & {\em 2} & {\em 3} & {\em 4} & {\em 5} & {\em 6} \\ 

1689: \hline

1690:   0.1667  & 0.357   & 0.1667  & 0.125   & 0.125   & 0.0417 \\

1691: \hline

1692: \end{tabular}

1693: \end{center}

1694: 

1695: \vspace{3mm}

1696: \begin{center}

1697: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}

1698: \hline

1699:   \multicolumn{4}{|c|}

1700:   {From {\em 9} to:} \\ 

1701: \hline 

1702:   {\em 10} & {\em 11} & {\em 12} & {\em 13} \\ 

1703: \hline

1704:   0.25  & 0.25   & 0.25  & 0.25   \\

1705: \hline

1706: \end{tabular}

1707: \end{center}

1708: 

1709: \vspace{3mm}

1710: \begin{center}

1711: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}

1712: \hline

1713:   &  {\em 7} & {\em 16} & {\em 18} & {\em 20} 

1714:   & {\em 21} & {\em 22} & {\em 25} & {\em 26}\\ 

1715: \hline

1716: {}From {\em 10} to:

1717:   & 0.2083   & 0.2083   & 0.125    & 0.0417

1718:   & 0.125    & 0.0417   & 0.125    & 0.125   \\

1719: \hline

1720: {}From {\em 12} to:

1721:   & 0.1167   & 0.3      & 0.1167   & 0.05

1722:   & 0.1333   & 0.0333   & 0.2      & 0.05   \\

1723: \hline

1724: \end{tabular}

1725: \end{center}

1726: 

1727: \vspace{3mm}

1728: \begin{center}

1729: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}

1730: \hline

1731:   &  {\em 14} & {\em 15} & {\em 17} & {\em 19} 

1732:   & {\em 23} & {\em 24} & {\em 27} & {\em 28}\\ 

1733: \hline

1734: {}From {\em 11} to:

1735:   & 0.2083   & 0.125    & 0.125    & 0.2083

1736:   & 0.125    & 0.0417   & 0.125    & 0.0417   \\

1737: \hline

1738: {}From {\em 13} to:

1739:   & 0.1167   & 0.1167   & 0.1333   & 0.3

1740:   & 0.2      & 0.0333   & 0.05     & 0.05   \\

1741: \hline

1742: \end{tabular}

1743: \end{center}

1744: 

1745: \vspace{3mm}

1746: \begin{center}

1747: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}

1748: \hline

1749:   \multicolumn{4}{|c|}

1750:   {From {\em 29} or {\em 31} to:} \\ 

1751: \hline 

1752:   {\em 32} & {\em 33} & {\em 34} & {\em 35} \\ 

1753: \hline

1754:   0.25  & 0.25   & 0.25  & 0.25   \\

1755: \hline

1756: \end{tabular}

1757: %\end{center}

1758: \ \ \ \ 

1759: %\begin{center}

1760: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}

1761: \hline

1762:   \multicolumn{4}{|c|}

1763:   {From {\em 30} to:} \\ 

1764: \hline 

1765:   {\em 10} & {\em 11} & {\em 12} & {\em 13} \\ 

1766: \hline

1767:   0.25  & 0.25   & 0.25  & 0.25   \\

1768: \hline

1769: \end{tabular}

1770: \end{center}

1771: 

1772: \vspace{3mm}

1773: \begin{center}

1774: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}

1775: \hline

1776:   \multicolumn{8}{|c|}

1777:   {From {\em 36} to:} \\ 

1778: \hline

1779:     {\em 31} & {\em 37} & {\em 38} & {\em 39} 

1780:   & {\em 40} & {\em 41} & {\em 42} & {\em 43} \\ 

1781: \hline

1782:     0.2083   & 0.125    & 0.125    & 0.2083

1783:   & 0.125    & 0.125    & 0.0417   & 0.0417   \\

1784: \hline

1785: \end{tabular}

1786: \end{center}

1787: 

1788: \vspace{3mm}

1789: \begin{center}

1790: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}

1791: \hline

1792:   \multicolumn{4}{|c|}

1793:   {From {\em 37} or {\em 38} or {\em 42} to:} \\ 

1794: \hline 

1795:   {\em 32} & {\em 33} & {\em 34} & {\em 35} \\ 

1796: \hline

1797:   0.25  & 0.25   & 0.25  & 0.25   \\

1798: \hline

1799: \end{tabular}

1800: %\end{center}

1801: \ \ \ \

1802: %\begin{center}

1803: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|}

1804: \hline

1805:   \multicolumn{2}{|c|}

1806:   {From {\em 39} or {\em 41} to:} \\ 

1807: \hline 

1808:   {\em 44} & {\em 46}  \\ 

1809: \hline

1810:     0.5    & 0.5    \\

1811: \hline

1812: \end{tabular}

1813: %\end{center}

1814: \ \ \ \

1815: %\begin{center}

1816: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}

1817: \hline

1818:   \multicolumn{4}{|c|}

1819:   {From {\em 40} or {\em 43} to:} \\ 

1820: \hline 

1821:   {\em 44} & {\em 45} & {\em 46} & {\em 47} \\ 

1822: \hline

1823:   0.25  & 0.25   & 0.25  & 0.25   \\

1824: \hline

1825: \end{tabular}

1826: \end{center}

1827: 

1828: 

1829: \begin{thebibliography}{100}

1830: \bibitem[Albert \ea, 2000]{ajb00}

1831: Albert, R., Jeong, H. \& Barab\'asi, A.-L., 2000. 

1832: \titleref{Error and attack tolerance in complex networks.}

1833: \pr{Nature}, \nr{406}, 378-382. 

1834: \bibitem[Albert\- and\- Othmer, 2003]{ao03}

1835: Albert, R. \& Othmer, H. G., 2003.

1836: \titleref{The topology of the regulatory interactions predicts the

1837: expression pattern of the {\it Drosophila} segment polarity genes.}

1838: \pr{J. Theor. Biol.} \nr{223}, 1-18. 

1839: \bibitem[Alcedo \ea, 2000]{azn00}

1840: Alcedo, J., Zou, Y. \& Noll, M., 2000.  

1841: \titleref{Posttranscriptional regulation of smoothened is part of a 

1842: self-correcting mechanism in the hedgehog signaling System.} 

1843: \pr{Molecular Cell} \nr{6}, 457-465.

1844: \bibitem[Alon \ea, 1999]{asml99}

1845: Alon, U., Surette, M., Barkai, N. and Leibler, S., 1999.

1846: \titleref{Robustness in Bacterial Chemotaxis.}

1847: \pr{Nature} \nr{397}, 168-171.

1848: \bibitem[Aza-Blanc \& Kornberg 1999]{ak99} 

1849: Aza-Blanc, P. \&  Kornberg, T. B. (1999)

1850: \titleref{Ci, a complex transducer of the Hedgehog

1851: signal}, \pr{Trends in Genetics} {\bf 15}, 458-462.

1852: \bibitem[Bejsovec and Wieschaus, 1993]{bw93} 

1853: Bejsovec, A. \& Wieschaus, E., 1993. 

1854: \titleref{Segment polarity gene interactions modulate epidermal

1855: patterning in {\it Drosophila} embryos.} \pr{Development} 

1856: \nr{119}, 501-517.

1857: \bibitem[Bernot \ea, 2004]{bcrg04}

1858: Bernot, G., Comet, J.-P., Richard, A. \& Guespin, J., 2004.

1859: \titleref{Application of formal methods to biological regulatory

1860: networks: extending Thomas' asynchronous logical approach with

1861: temporal logic.}

1862: \pr{J. Theor. Biol.} \nr{229}, 339-347.

1863: \bibitem[Bertsekas and Tsitsiklis, 1989]{tsi}

1864: Bertsekas, D.P. \& Tsitsiklis, J.N., 1989. 

1865: \pr{Parallel and Distributed Computation, Numerical Methods}.

1866: Prentice Hall, New Jersey.

1867: \bibitem[Bodnar, 1997]{b97}

1868: Bodnar, J. W., 1997.  

1869: \titleref{Programming the {\it Drosophila} Embryo.} 

1870: \pr{J. Theor. Biol.} \nr{188}, 391-445.

1871: \bibitem[Cadigan \ea, 1994]{cgg94} 

1872: Cadigan, K. M., Grossniklaus, U. \& Gehring, W. J., 1994. 

1873: \titleref{Localized expression of {\it sloppy paired} protein 

1874: maintains the polarity of {\it Drosophila} parasegments.} 

1875: \pr{ Genes \& Dev.} \nr{8}, 899-913.

1876: \bibitem[Cadigan \& Nusse 1997]{cn97}

1877: Cadigan, K. M., \& Nusse, R. (1997) 

1878: \titleref{Wnt signaling: a common theme in animal

1879: development.} \pr{Genes Dev.} {\bf 11}, 3286-3305.

1880: \bibitem[Carlson and Doyle, 2002]{cd02}

1881: Carlson, J. M. \& Doyle, J., 2002.

1882: \titleref{Complexity and robustness}.

1883: \pr{Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci.} \nr{99}, 2538-2545.

1884: \bibitem[Conant and Wagner, 2004]{cw04}

1885: Conant, G. C.\& Wagner A., 2004.

1886: \titleref{Duplicate genes and robustness to transient gene knock-downs in 

1887: Caenorhabditis elegans.}

1888: \pr{Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci.} \nr{271}, 89-96. 

1889: \bibitem[Davidson \ea, 2002]{d02}

1890: Davidson, E. H., {\it et al.}, 2002. 

1891: \titleref{A genomic regulatory network for development.}

1892: \pr{Science} \nr{295}, 1669-1678.

1893: \bibitem[de Jong \ea, 2004]{jg04}

1894: de Jong, H. {\it et al.}, 2004. 

1895: \titleref{Qualitative simulation of genetic regulatory networks using 

1896: piecewise-linear models.}

1897: \pr{Bull. Math. Bio.} \nr{66}, 301-340.

1898: \bibitem[DiNardo \ea, 1988]{dshk88} 

1899: DiNardo, S., Sher, E., Heemskerk-Jongens, J., Kassis, J. A. \&  O'Farrell,

1900:  P. H., 1988. 

1901: \titleref{Two-tiered regulation of spatially patterned {\it engrailed} gene expression 

1902: during {\it Drosophila} embryogenesis}. \pr{Nature} \nr{332}, 45-53.

1903: \bibitem[Eaton \& Kornberg 1990]{ek90} 

1904:  Eaton, S. \& Kornberg, T. B. (1990) 

1905:  \titleref{Repression of ci-D in posterior

1906:  compartments of Drosophila by {\it engrailed}.} \pr{Genes. Dev.} {\bf 4}, 

1907:  1068-1077.

1908: \bibitem[Eldar \ea, 2002]{eb02}

1909: Eldar, A., Dorfman, R., Weiss, D., Ashe, H., Shilo, B.-Z. \& Barkai, N., 2002. 

1910: \titleref{Robustness of the BMP morphogen gradient in {\it Drosophila} 

1911: embryonic patterning.}

1912: \pr{Nature} \nr{419}, 304-308.

1913: \bibitem[Feller, 1970]{feller}

1914: Feller, W., 1970.

1915: \pr{An Introduction to Probability Theory and its Applications (Third edition, revised)}.

1916: John Wiley \& Sons, New York, 1970.

1917: \bibitem[Gallet \ea, 2000]{gakt00} 

1918: Gallet, A., Angelats, C., Kerridge, S. \&  Th\'erond, P. P., 2000.  

1919: \titleref{Cubitus interruptus-independent transduction of the Hedgehog signal in {\it Drosophila}},

1920: \pr{Development} \nr{127}, 5509-5522.

1921: \bibitem[Ghysen and Thomas, 2003]{gt03}

1922: Ghysen, A. \& Thomas, R., 2003.

1923: \titleref{The formation of sense organs in {\it Drosophila}: A logical approach.} 

1924: \pr{BioEssays} \nr{25}, 802-807.

1925: \bibitem[Glass and Kauffman, 1973]{gk73}

1926: Glass, L. \&  Kauffman, S. A., 1973.

1927: \titleref{The logical analysis of continuous, nonlinear biochemical control networks.} 

1928: \pr{J. Theor. Biol.} \nr{39}, 103-129.

1929: \bibitem[Grossniklaus \ea, 1992]{gpg92}

1930: Grossniklaus, U., Pearson, R. K. \&  Gehring, W. J. (1992) The {\it Drosophila

1931: sloppy paired} locus encodes two proteins involved in segmentation that show

1932: homology with mammalian transcription factors.{\it Genes Dev.} {\bf 6}, 

1933: 1030-1051.

1934: \bibitem[Gursky \ea, 2001]{grs01}

1935: Gursky, V. V., Reinitz, J. \& Samsonov, A. M., 2001. 

1936: \titleref{How gap genes make their domains: An analytical study based 

1937: on data driven approximations.} 

1938: \pr{Chaos} \nr{11}, 132-141.

1939: \bibitem[Hidalgo and Ingham, 1990]{hi90} 

1940: Hidalgo, A. \& Ingham, P., 1990. 

1941: \titleref{Cell Patterning in the {\it Drosophila} segment:

1942: spatial regulation of the segment polarity gene {\it patched}}. 

1943: \pr{Development} \nr{110}, 291-301.

1944: \bibitem[Hooper and Scott, 1992]{hs92} 

1945: Hooper, J. E. \& Scott, M. P., 1992. 

1946: \titleref{The Molecular Genetic Basis of Positional

1947: Information in Insect Segments.} 

1948: In: \pr{Early Embryonic Development of Animals} 

1949: (ed. Hennig, W.) 1-49, Springer, Berlin.

1950:  \bibitem[Ingham 1998]{i98}

1951: Ingham, P. W. (1998) Transducing hedgehog: the story so far, {\it EMBO J.} 

1952: {\bf 17}, 3505-3511.

1953: \bibitem[Ingham \& McMahon 2001]{im01}

1954: Ingham, P. W. \& McMahon, A. P. (2001) Hedgehog signaling in animal development:

1955: paradigms and principles, \pr{Genes Dev.} {\bf 15}, 3059-3087.

1956: \bibitem[Ingham \ea, 1991]{itn91}

1957: Ingham, P.W., Taylor, A. M. \& Nakano, Y., 1991. 

1958: \titleref{Role of the {\it Drosophila

1959: patched} gene in positional signaling}. \pr{Nature} \nr{353}, 184-187. 

1960: \bibitem[Jeong \ea, 2000]{jtaob00}

1961: Jeong, H., Tombor,  B., Albert, R., Oltvai, Z.N. 

1962: \& Barab\'asi, A.-L., 2000. 

1963: {\titleref The large-scale organization of metabolic networks.}

1964: \pr{Nature} \nr{407}, 651-654. 

1965: \bibitem[Jeong \ea, 2001]{jmbo01}

1966: Jeong, H., Mason, S., Barab\'asi, A.-L. \& Oltvai, Z. N., 2001. 

1967: \titleref{Lethality and centrality in protein networks.}

1968: \pr{Nature} \nr{411}, 41-42.

1969: \bibitem[Kauffman, 1993]{k93}

1970: Kauffman, S. A., 1993. 

1971: \pr{The origins of Order}. Oxford University Press, New York.

1972: \bibitem[Kauffman \ea, 2003]{kpst03}

1973: Kauffman, S., Peterson, C., Samuelsson, B., Troein, C., 2003.

1974: \titleref{Random Boolean network models and the yeast transcriptional network.}

1975: \pr{Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA.} \nr{100} 14796-9.

1976: \bibitem[Martinez-Arias \ea, 1988]{mbi88} 

1977: Martinez-Arias, A., Baker, N. \& Ingham, P. W., 1988. \titleref{Role of segment polarity

1978: genes in the definition and maintenance of cell states in the {\it Drosophila }

1979: embryo}. \pr{Development} \nr{103}, 157-170.

1980: \bibitem[Mendoza \ea, 1999]{mta99}

1981: Mendoza, L., Thieffry, D. \& Alvarez-Buylla, E. R., 1999. 

1982: \titleref{Genetic control of flower morphogenesis in 

1983: {\it Arabidopsis thaliana}: a logical analysis.} 

1984: \pr{Bioinformatics} \nr{15}, 593-606.

1985: \bibitem[Ohlmeyer \& Kalderon 1998]{ok98} 

1986: Ohlmeyer, J. T. \& Kalderon, D. (1998) hedgehog stimulates maturation of

1987: Cubitus interruptus into a labile transcriptional activator. {\it Nature } 

1988: {\bf 396}, 749-753.

1989: \bibitem[Pfeiffer \& Vincent 1999]{pv99}

1990: Pfeiffer, S. \&  Vincent, J.-P. (1999) 

1991: \titleref{Signaling at a distance:Transport of

1992: Wingless in the embryonic epidermis of  {\it Drosophila}.} {\it Cell \& Dev. 

1993: Biol.} {\bf 10}, 303-309.

1994: \bibitem[Rao \ea, 2002]{rwa02}

1995: Rao, C.V., Wolf, D.M. \& Arkin, A. P., 2002. 

1996: \titleref{Control, exploitation and tolerance of intracellular noise.}

1997: \pr{Nature} \nr{420}, 231-237.

1998: \bibitem[Reinitz and Sharp, 1995]{rs95}

1999: Reinitz, J. \& Sharp, D. H., 1995. 

2000: \titleref{Mechanism of eve stripe formation.} 

2001: \pr{Mechanisms of Development} \nr{49}, 133-158.

2002: \bibitem[S\'anchez and Thieffry, 2001]{st01}

2003: S\'anchez, L., \& Thieffry, D., 2001.

2004: \titleref{A logical analysis of the {\it Drosophila} gap-gene system.} 

2005: \pr{J. Theor. Biol.} \nr{211}, 115-141.

2006: \bibitem[Schwartz \ea, 1995]{slnk95} 

2007: Schwartz, C., Locke, J., Nishida, C. \&  Kornberg, T. B., 1995. \titleref{Analysis of {\it

2008: cubitus interruptus} regulation in {\it Drosophila} embryos and imaginal disks}.

2009: \pr{Development} \nr{121}, 1625-1635.

2010: \bibitem[Tabata \ea, 1992]{tek92} 

2011: Tabata, T., Eaton, S. \&  Kornberg, T. B., 1992.

2012: \titleref{ The {\it Drosophila hedgehog}

2013: gene is expressed specifically in posterior compartment cells and is a target of

2014: {\it engrailed} regulation.}

2015: \pr{Genes \& Dev.} \nr{6}, 2635-2645.

2016: \bibitem[Taylor \ea, 1993]{tnmi93} 

2017: Taylor, A. M., Nakano, Y., Mohler, J. \&  Ingham, P. W., 1993. 

2018: \titleref{ Contrasting distributions of patched and hedgehog proteins in the 

2019: {\it Drosophila } embryo.}

2020: \pr{Mechanisms of Development }\nr{42}, 89-96.

2021: \bibitem[Thomas, 1973]{t73}

2022: Thomas, R., 1973. 

2023: \titleref{Boolean formalization of genetic control circuits.} 

2024: \pr{J. Theor. Biol.} \nr{42}, 563-585.

2025: \bibitem[von Dassow \ea, 2000]{dmmo00} 

2026: von Dassow, G., Meir., E., Munro, E. M., \& Odell, G. M., 2000. 

2027: \titleref{The segment polarity network is a robust developmental

2028:   module.} 

2029: \pr{Nature} \nr{406}, 188-192.

2030: \bibitem[Wolpert \ea, 1998]{w98}

2031: Wolpert, L., Beddington, R., Brockes, J., Jessell, T., Lawrence, P., \&

2032: Meyerowitz, E., 1998. 

2033: \pr{Principles of Development} 

2034: Current Biology Ltd., London.

2035: \bibitem[Yuh \ea, 2001]{ybd01}

2036: Yuh, C. H., Bolouri, H., Bower, J. M. and Davidson, E. H., 2001. 

2037: \titleref{ A logical model of cis-regulatory control in a eukaryotic system}. 

2038: In: \pr{Computational Modeling of Genetic and Biochemical Networks} 

2039: (eds. Bower, J. M. and  Bolouri, H.), 73-100, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

2040: 

2041: \end{thebibliography}

2042: 

2043: 

2044: \end{document}

2045: 

2046: 

2047: