Elastic Multi-scale Mechanisms: Computation and Biological Evolution
Juan G. Diaz Ochoa1
Journal of Molecular Evolution volume 86, pages47–57(2018)Cite this article
Explanations based on low-level interacting elements are valuable and powerful since they contribute to identify the key mechanisms of biological functions. However, many dynamic systems based on low-level interacting elements with unambiguous, finite, and complete information of initial states generate future states that cannot be predicted, implying an increase of complexity and open-ended evolution. Such systems are like Turing machines, that overlap with dynamical systems that cannot halt. We argue that organisms find halting conditions by distorting these mechanisms, creating conditions for a constant creativity that drives evolution. We introduce a modulus of elasticity to measure the changes in these mechanisms in response to changes in the computed environment. We test this concept in a population of predators and predated cells with chemotactic mechanisms and demonstrate how the selection of a given mechanism depends on the entire population. We finally explore this concept in different frameworks and postulate that the identification of predictive mechanisms is only successful with small elasticity modulus.
This adaptation explains why the rolling stones have survived so many time despite drug and general health abuse.
This relation is valid since we relate two distances. No additional mathematical structures are here involved.
Both conditions are dangerous, since dynamical systems could be used to describe systems that are oee. This can be wrong if the existence of the gap between trajectories describing the environment is not recognized.
Otherwise we must assume for instance more than one adaptive response associated to different models
http://www.genengnews.com/gen-news-highlights/cancers-grow-by-throwing-epigenetic-smother-parties/81253107/.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v537/n7619_supp/full/537S63a.html.
Adams A, Zenil H, Davies PCW, Walker SI (2017) Formal definitions of unbounded evolution and innovation reveal universal mechanisms for open-ended evolution in dynamical systems. Sci Rep 7:997
Ahn AC, Tewari M, Poon C-S, Phillips RS (2006). The limits of reductionism in medicine: could systems biology offer an alternative? PLoS Med 3:e208
Alon U (2006) An Introduction to systems biology: design principles of biological circuits. Chapman & Hall/CRC Mathematical & Computational Biology, Boca Raton
Arditi R, Ginzburg LR (1989) Coupling in predator-prey dynamics: ratio-dependence. J Theor Biol 139:311–326
Barabási A-L (2009) Scale-free networks: a decade and beyond. Science 325:412–413
Bitbol M, Luisi PL (2004) Autopoiesis with or without cognition: defining life at its edge. J R Soc Interface 1:99–107
Buescu J, Graça DS, Zhong N (2011) Computability and dynamical systems. In: Dynamics, games and science I. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 169–181
Carroll JW (2016). Laws of nature. In: Zalta EN (ed) The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, Stanford
Castelvecchi D (2015) Paradox at the heart of mathematics makes physics problem unanswerable. Nature 528:207
Chang H, Levchenko A (2013) Adaptive molecular networks controlling chemotactic migration: dynamic inputs and selection of the network architecture. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B 368:20130117
Cubitt TS, Perez-Garcia D, Wolf MM (2015) Undecidability of the spectral gap. Nature 528:207–211
Danchin A (2009) Bacteria as computers making computers. FEMS Microbiol Rev 33:3–26
Descartes R. Treatise on man
Ellis GFR (2012) Top-down causation and emergence: some comments on mechanisms. Interface Focus 2:126–140
England JL (2012) Statistical physics of self-replication. ArXiv12091179 Cond-Mat Physicsphysics Q-Bio
England JL (2015) Dissipative adaptation in driven self-assembly. Nat Nanotechnol 10:919–923
Goldenfeld N, Woese C (2011) Life is physics: evolution as a collective phenomenon far from equilibrium. Annu Rev Condens Matter Phys 2:375–399
Hernández-Orozco S, Hernández-Quiroz F, Zenil H (2016). Undecidability and irreducibility conditions for open-ended evolution and emergence. ArXiv E-Prints arXiv:1606.01810
Khanin R, Wit E (2006) How scale-free are biological networks. J Comput Biol 13:810–818
Landau LD (2004) Theory of elasticity. Butterworth-Heinemann Ltd, Oxford
Marzen SE, DeDeo S (2017). The evolution of lossy compression. J R Soc Interface. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2017.0166
Maturana HR, Varela FJ (2004) el Arbol del conocimiento: las bases biológicas del entendimiento humano. Lumen, Buenos Aires
Ochoa JGD (2014) Relative constraints and evolution. Int J Mod Phys C 25:1450030
Peper A (2009) Intermittent adaptation. A theory of drug tolerance, dependence and addiction. Pharmacopsychiatry 42(Suppl 1):S129–S143
Rathgeber S (2002). Practical rheology. In: 33. IFF-Ferienkurs 2002, Institut Für Festkörperforschung: soft matter, complex materials on mesoscopic scales. Schriften des Forschungszentrum Jülich, Jülich, p C9.2
Rosenberg A (1997) Reductionism redux: computing the embryo. Biol Philos 12:445–470
Tabery J, Piotrowska M, Darden L (2005) Molecular biology. Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy
Thienpont B, Steinbacher J, Zhao H, D'Anna F, Kuchnio A, Ploumakis A, Ghesquière B, Van Dyck L, Boeckx B, Schoonjans L et al (2016) Tumour hypoxia causes DNA hypermethylation by reducing TET activity. Nature 537:63–68
Tononi G, Sporns O, Edelman GM (1999) Measures of degeneracy and redundancy in biological networks. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 96:3257–3262
Turing A (1936) On computable numbers, with an application to the entscheidungsproblem. Proc Lond Math Soc 42:230–265
Wang CJ, Bergmann A, Lin B, Kim K, Levchenko A (2012a) Diverse sensitivity thresholds in dynamic signaling responses by social amoebae. Sci Signal 5:ra17–ra17
Wang Y, Xu M, Wang Z, Tao M, Zhu J, Wang L, Li R, Berceli SA, Wu R (2012b) How to cluster gene expression dynamics in response to environmental signals. Brief Bioinform 13:162–174
I want to acknowledge the constructive input from two anonymous referees who helped me to refine and set this work on a solid basis. Without this collaborative work with the reviewers it hasn't been possible to give the final form of this manuscript. I am also grateful to Elena Ramírez for decisive discussions that provided the fundamental elements exposed in this manuscript.
Data Science & Machine Learning Division, PerMediQ GmbH, Salzbergweg 18, 85368, Wang, Germany
Juan G. Diaz Ochoa
Search for Juan G. Diaz Ochoa in:
Correspondence to Juan G. Diaz Ochoa.
Appendix: Model Equations
Structure: Molecular Network
The implemented equations for a chemotactic response were adapted from Wang et al. (2012a). Adaptive response relies on a 'negative feedback adaptive'-based response (iFF) which is described by the following equations
$$\begin{gathered} \frac{{{\text{d}}x(t)}}{{{\text{d}}t}}={\text{K}}1{\text{cb}} \cdot y(t) \cdot \frac{{\left( {1 - x(t)} \right)}}{{\left( {\left( {1 - x(t)} \right)+{\text{K2cb}}} \right)}} - {\text{Fb}} \cdot {\text{K2Fbb}} \cdot \frac{{x(t)}}{{x(t)+{\text{K1Fbb}}}} \hfill \\ \frac{{{\text{d}}y(t)}}{{{\text{d}}t}}={\text{K}}2{\text{ac}} \cdot z(t) \cdot \frac{{\left( {1 - x(t)} \right)}}{{\left( {\left( {1 - x(t)} \right)+{\text{K}}2{\text{cb}}} \right)}} - {\text{Fb}} \cdot {\text{K2Fbb}} \cdot \frac{{x(t)}}{{x(t)+{\text{K}}1{\text{Fbb}}}} \hfill \\ \frac{{{\text{d}}z(t)}}{{{\text{d}}t}}= - z\left( t \right)+{\text{Force}} \hfill \\ \frac{{{\text{d}}r(t)}}{{{\text{d}}t}}=x\left( t \right) - r(t) \hfill \\ \end{gathered}$$
We assume that \(r(t)\) is the response function, \(x\left( t \right)\) is an activating pathway, \(y(t)\) is a delayed inhibitory pathway, \({\text{Force}}\) the external stimuli in the network, defined as a stimulus that growths proportional to the time
$${\text{Force}}\,(t)={\text{Ampl}} \times 0.0007 \times t$$
with \({\text{Ampl}}=0.5\); and \(x\left( t \right)\), \(y\left( t \right)\), and \(z\left( t \right)\) the internal concentrations in the network. For this case, we use the following parameters, extracted from the supplementary material from Wang et al. (2012a).
Parameter adaptive response
K1cb 0.01
K2cb 0.2
K1Fbb 0.1
K2Fbb 0.01
K1ac 1
K1bc 2
K2bc 0.1
If organisms have a non-adaptive response then
$$S=~ - 1$$
When the organism switchs to a non-adaptive response, a negative integral feedback (NFB) is implemented. In this case the following network of interactions were defined
$$\begin{gathered} \frac{{{\text{d}}x(t)}}{{{\text{d}}t}}={\text{K1cb}} \cdot y(t) \cdot \frac{{\left( {1 - x(t)} \right)}}{{\left( {\left( {1 - x(t)} \right)+{\text{K2cb}}} \right)}} - {\text{Fb}} \cdot {\text{K2Fbb}} \cdot \frac{{x(t)}}{{x(t)+{\text{K1Fbb}}}} \hfill \\ \frac{{{\text{d}}y(t)}}{{{\text{d}}t}}={\text{K2ac}} \cdot z(t) \cdot \frac{{\left( {1 - y(t)} \right)}}{{\left( {\left( {1 - y(t)} \right)+{\text{K1ac}}} \right)}} - {\text{K2bc}} \cdot \frac{{x(t) \cdot y(t)}}{{y(t)+{\text{K1bc}}}} \hfill \\ \frac{{{\text{d}}z(t)}}{{{\text{d}}t}}= - z\left( t \right)+{\text{Force}} \hfill \\ \frac{{{\text{d}}r(t)}}{{{\text{d}}t}}=z\left( t \right) - r(t) \hfill \\ \end{gathered}$$
with the following parameters, extracted from Chang and Lexchenko (2013).
Parameter non-adaptive response
K1cb 0.0007
K2Fbb 0.1473
K1ac 4.7339
K1bc 0.0069
$$S=~1$$
The set of equations above describe the response of the organism to external conditions depending on the changes in the concentration of the intracellular molecules.
Now, we introduce the population dynamics, which depends on the consumption of resources as well as the balance between the population of consumers \(C(t)\) and predated cells with chemotaxis \(P(t)\) (owning an adaptive/non-adaptive response). We describe this population using the Lotka–Volterra equations:
$$\begin{aligned} {\text{Ingest}}C(t) &= v \cdot P(t) \cdot C(t) \hfill \\ {\text{Growth}}P(t) &= rG \cdot P~(t) \cdot \left( {1 - \frac{{P(t)}}{K}} \right)~ \hfill \\ {\text{Mort}}C(t) &= rM \cdot C(t) \hfill \\ ~\frac{{{\text{d}}P(t)}}{{{\text{d}}t}} &= {\text{Growth}}P(t) - {\text{Ingest}}C(t) \hfill \\ \frac{{{\text{d}}C(t)}}{{{\text{d}}t}} &= {\text{Ingest}}C(t) \cdot AE - {\text{Mort}}C(t), \hfill \\ \end{aligned}$$
where the parameter \(v\) represents the velocity of propagation of the prey, which is a parameter that depends on the kind of response of the organisms that belong to \(P(t)\). In our experiment, we assume that organisms with non-adaptive response have a slow propagation velocity; we consider therefore the following parameters.
Non-adaptive response (sustained response)
Adaptive response (fast relaxation)
\(v=0.01\) \(v=0.05\)
For organisms with distorted mechanisms we impose the following conditions
$$r{\text{II}} = \left\{ {\begin{array}{*{20}l} {0.01\quad {\text{if }}r\left( t \right) < 0.3{\text{ and }}r\left( t \right)\,{\text{is non-adaptive}}} \\ {0.05\quad ~{\text{if }}r\left( t \right)> 0.3{\text{ and }}r\left( t \right)\,{\text{is adaptive}}} \\ \end{array} } \right.$$
For all the experiments, we considered the following initial conditions: x = 0.0, y = 0.0, z = 0.0, r = 0.0, P = 1, C = 0. For the population dynamics, we use normalized values.
Diaz Ochoa, J.G. Elastic Multi-scale Mechanisms: Computation and Biological Evolution. J Mol Evol 86, 47–57 (2018) doi:10.1007/s00239-017-9823-7
Elastic mechanisms
Computational theory
Open-ended evolution