Logic Modeling and the Ridiculome Under the Rug

Logic-derived modeling has been used to map biological networks and to study arbitrary functional interactions, and fine-grained kinetic modeling can accurately predict the detailed behavior of well-characterized molecular systems; at present, however, neither approach comes close to unraveling the full complexity of a cell. The current data revolution offers significant promises and challenges to both approaches - and could bring them together as it has spurred the development of new methods and tools that may help to bridge the many gaps between data, models, and mechanistic understanding. Have you used logic modeling in your research? It would not be surprising if many biologists would answer no to this hypothetical question. And it would not be true. In high school biology we already became familiar with cartoon diagrams that illustrate basic mechanisms of the molecular machinery operating inside cells. These are nothing else but simple logic models. If receptor and ligand are present, then receptor-ligand complexes form; if a receptor-ligand complex exists, then an enzyme gets activated; if the enzyme is active, then a second messenger is being produced; and so on. Such chains of causality are the essence of logic models (Figure 1a). Arbitrary events and mechanisms are abstracted; relationships are simplified and usually involve just two possible conditions and three possible consequences. The presence or absence of one or more molecule, activity, or function, [some icons in the cartoon] will determine whether another one of them will be produced (created, up-regulated, stimulated) [a \u27positive\u27 link] or destroyed (degraded, down-regulated, inhibited) [a \u27negative\u27 link], or be unaffected [there is no link]. The icons and links often do not follow a standardized format, but when we look at such a cartoon diagram, we believe that we \u27understand\u27 how the system works. Because our brain is easily able to process these relationships, these diagrams allow us to answer two fundamental types of questions related to the system: why (are certain things happening)? What if (we make some changes)

Molecular machines or pleiomorphic ensembles: signaling complexes revisited

Signaling complexes typically consist of highly dynamic molecular ensembles that are challenging to study and to describe accurately. Conventional mechanical descriptions misrepresent this reality and can be actively counterproductive by misdirecting us away from investigating critical issues

Systems biology markup language (SBML) level 3 package: multistate, multicomponent and multicompartment species, version 1, release 2

Rule-based modeling is an approach that permits constructing reaction networks based on the specification of rules for molecular interactions and transformations. These rules can encompass details such as the interacting sub-molecular domains and the states and binding status of the involved components. Conceptually, fine-grained spatial information such as locations can also be provided. Through “wildcards” representing component states, entire families of molecule complexes sharing certain properties can be specified as patterns. This can significantly simplify the definition of models involving species with multiple components, multiple states, and multiple compartments. The systems biology markup language (SBML) Level 3 Multi Package Version 1 extends the SBML Level 3 Version 1 core with the “type” concept in the Species and Compartment classes. Therefore, reaction rules may contain species that can be patterns and exist in multiple locations. Multiple software tools such as Simmune and BioNetGen support this standard that thus also becomes amedium for exchanging rule-based models. This document provides the specification for Release 2 of Version 1 of the SBML Level 3 Multi package. No design changes have been made to the description of models between Release 1 and Release 2; changes are restricted to the correction of errata and the addition of clarifications