Developments in the tools and methodologies of synthetic biology.

Synthetic biology is principally concerned with the rational design and engineering of biologically based parts, devices, or systems. However, biological systems are generally complex and unpredictable, and are therefore, intrinsically difficult to engineer. In order to address these fundamental challenges, synthetic biology is aiming to unify a body of knowledge from several foundational scientific fields, within the context of a set of engineering principles. This shift in perspective is enabling synthetic biologists to address complexity, such that robust biological systems can be designed, assembled, and tested as part of a biological design cycle. The design cycle takes a forward-design approach in which a biological system is specified, modeled, analyzed, assembled, and its functionality tested. At each stage of the design cycle, an expanding repertoire of tools is being developed. In this review, we highlight several of these tools in terms of their applications and benefits to the synthetic biology community

A geometric and structural approach to the analysis and design of biological circuit dynamics: a theory tailored for synthetic biology

Much of the progress in developing our ability to successfully design genetic circuits with predictable dynamics has followed the strategy of molding biological systems to fit into conceptual frameworks used in other disciplines, most notably the engineering sciences. Because biological systems have fundamental differences from systems in these other disciplines, this approach is challenging and the insights obtained from such analyses are often not framed in a biologically-intuitive way. Here, we present a new theoretical framework for analyzing the dynamics of genetic circuits that is tailored towards the unique properties associated with biological systems and experiments. Our framework approximates a complex circuit as a set of simpler circuits, which the system can transition between by saturating its various internal components. These approximations are connected to the intrinsic structure of the system, so this representation allows the analysis of dynamics which emerge solely from the system's structure. Using our framework, we analyze the presence of structural bistability in a leaky autoactivation motif and the presence of structural oscillations in the Repressilator

Biological Systems from an Engineer’s Point of View

Mathematical modeling of the processes that pattern embryonic development (often called biological pattern formation) has a long and rich history [1,2]. These models proposed sets of hypothetical interactions, which, upon analysis, were shown to be capable of generating patterns reminiscent of those seen in the biological world, such as stripes, spots, or graded properties. Pattern formation models typically demonstrated the sufficiency of given classes of mechanisms to create patterns that mimicked a particular biological pattern or interaction. In the best cases, the models were able to make testable predictions [3], permitting them to be experimentally challenged, to be revised, and to stimulate yet more experimental tests (see review in [4]). In many other cases, however, the impact of the modeling efforts was mitigated by limitations in computer power and biochemical data. In addition, perhaps the most limiting factor was the mindset of many modelers, using Occam’s razor arguments to make the proposed models as simple as possible, which often generated intriguing patterns, but those patterns lacked the robustness exhibited by the biological system. In hindsight, one could argue that a greater attention to engineering principles would have focused attention on these shortcomings, including potential failure modes, and would have led to more complex, but more robust, models. Thus, despite a few successful cases in which modeling and experimentation worked in concert, modeling fell out of vogue as a means to motivate decisive test experiments. The recent explosion of molecular genetic, genomic, and proteomic data—as well as of quantitative imaging studies of biological tissues—has changed matters dramatically, replacing a previous dearth of molecular details with a wealth of data that are difficult to fully comprehend. This flood of new data has been accompanied by a new influx of physical scientists into biology, including engineers, physicists, and applied mathematicians [5–7]. These individuals bring with them the mindset, methodologies, and mathematical toolboxes common to their own fields, which are proving to be appropriate for analysis of biological systems. However, due to inherent complexity, biological systems seem to be like nothing previously encountered in the physical sciences. Thus, biological systems offer cutting edge problems for most scientific and engineering-related disciplines. It is therefore no wonder that there might seem to be a “bandwagon” of new biology-related research programs in departments that have traditionally focused on nonliving systems. Modeling biological interactions as dynamical systems (i.e., systems of variables changing in time) allows investigation of systems-level topics such as the robustness of patterning mechanisms, the role of feedback, and the self-regulation of size. The use of tools from engineering and applied mathematics, such as sensitivity analysis and control theory, is becoming more commonplace in biology. In addition to giving biologists some new terminology for describing their systems, such analyses are extremely useful in pointing to missing data and in testing the validity of a proposed mechanism. A paper in this issue of PLoS Biology clearly and honestly applies analytical tools to the authors’ research and obtains insights that would have been difficult if not impossible by other means [8]

The context-dependence of mutations: a linkage of formalisms

Defining the extent of epistasis - the non-independence of the effects of mutations - is essential for understanding the relationship of genotype, phenotype, and fitness in biological systems. The applications cover many areas of biological research, including biochemistry, genomics, protein and systems engineering, medicine, and evolutionary biology. However, the quantitative definitions of epistasis vary among fields, and its analysis beyond just pairwise effects remains obscure in general. Here, we show that different definitions of epistasis are versions of a single mathematical formalism - the weighted Walsh-Hadamard transform. We discuss that one of the definitions, the backgound-averaged epistasis, is the most informative when the goal is to uncover the general epistatic structure of a biological system, a description that can be rather different from the local epistatic structure of specific model systems. Key issues are the choice of effective ensembles for averaging and to practically contend with the vast combinatorial complexity of mutations. In this regard, we discuss possible approaches for optimally learning the epistatic structure of biological systems.Comment: 6 pages, 3 figures, supplementary informatio

An introduction to Biomodel engineering, illustrated for signal transduction pathways

BioModel Engineering is the science of designing, constructing and analyzing computational models of biological systems. It is inspired by concepts from software engineering and computing science. This paper illustrates a major theme in BioModel Engineering, namely that identifying a quantitative model of a dynamic system means building the structure, finding an initial state, and parameter fitting. In our approach, the structure is obtained by piecewise construction of models from modular parts, the initial state is obtained by analysis of the structure and parameter fitting comprises determining the rate parameters of the kinetic equations. We illustrate this with an example in the area of intracellular signalling pathways

Engineering the Interface Between Cellular Chassis and Integrated Biological Systems

The engineering of biological systems with predictable behavior is a challenging problem. One reason for this difficulty is that engineered biological systems are embedded within complex and variable host cells. To help enable the future engineering of biological systems, I will study and optimize the interface between an engineered biological system and its host cell or “chassis”. Other engineering disciplines use modularity to make interacting systems interchangeable and to insulate one system from another. Engineered biological systems are more likely to work as predicted if system function is decoupled from the state of the host cell. Also, specifying and standardizing the interfaces between a system and the chassis will allow systems to be engineered independent of chassis and allow systems to be interchanged between different chassis. To this end, I will build dedicated transcription and translation systems, independent from the equivalent host cell systems. In parallel, I will develop test systems and metrics to measure the interactions between an engineered system and its chassis. Lastly, I will explore methods to “port” a simple engineered system from a prokaryotic to a eukaryotic organism so that the system can function in both organisms

Course Portfolio for Assessing Student Learning Surrounding Biological Examples in BSEN244: Thermodynamics of Biological Systems

Thermodynamics is a course required in many engineering disciplines as it covers concepts utilized in many upper level engineering courses. In the Biological Systems Engineering Department at the University of Nebraska – Lincoln, this course, in a way, acts as a gateway to the major since this will be one of the first classes where the students must apply and hone their problem-solving skills. This course was developed to allow students in the department to have access to a thermodynamics course that relates to their major area of interest – biological systems. However, many concepts in thermodynamics do not have a good, direct biological correlate that can be used to engage student interest. Therefore, my goal in putting together this portfolio was to assess whether introducing thermodynamics concepts within a biological framework improved student learning. To do this, two separate but related concepts were introduced, one without any biological examples and one with. The students were then quizzed on the concepts at the end of the week they were introduced in class. Overall, the class performed significantly better on the quiz assessing concepts that were introduced within a framework of biological systems. This was most pronounced for students with average performance in the quiz assessing concepts introduced without biological examples, whereas high performing students performed well regardless of how the concepts were introduced. These findings suggest that introducing thermodynamics concepts within the framework of biological systems to Biological Systems Engineering majors improves student learning