Reprogramming of cellular networks is a well known challenge in computational biology consisting first of all in properly representing an ensemble of networks having a role in a phenomenon of interest, and secondly in designing strategies to alter the functioning of this ensemble in the desired direction.  Important applications involve disease study: a therapy can be seen as a reprogramming strategy, and the disease itself can be considered a result of a series of adversarial reprogramming actions.  The origins of this domain go back to the seminal paper by Barabási et al. [1] which formalized the concept of network medicine.

An abstract tool which has gathered considerable success in network medicine and network biology are Boolean networks: sets of Boolean variables, each equipped with a Boolean update function describing how to compute the next value of the variable from the values of the other variables.  Despite apparent dissimilarity with the biological systems which involve varying quantities and continuous processes, Boolean networks have been very effective in representing biological networks whose entities are typically seen as being on or off.  Particular examples are protein signalling networks as well as gene regulatory networks.

The paper [2] by Loïc Paulevé presents a versatile tool for tackling reprogramming of Boolean networks seen as models of biological networks.  The problem of reprogramming is often formulated as the problem of finding a set of perturbations which guarantee some properties on the attractors.  The work [2] relies on the most permissive semantics [3], which together with the modelling assumption allows for considerable speed-up in the practically relevant subclass of locally-monotone Boolean networks.

The paper is structured as a tutorial.  It starts by introducing the formalism, defining 4 different general variants of reprogramming under the most permissive semantics, and presenting evaluations of their complexity in terms of the polynomial hierarchy.  The author then describes the software tool BoNesis which can handle different problems related to Boolean networks, and in particular the 4 reprogramming variants.  The presentation includes concrete code examples with their output, which should be very helpful for future users.

The paper [2] introduces a novel scenario: reprogramming of ensembles of Boolean networks delineated by some properties, including for example the property of having a given interaction graph.  Ensemble reprogramming looks particularly promising in situations in which the biological knowledge is insufficient to fully determine all the update functions, i.e. in the majority of modelling situations.  Finally, the author also shows how BoNesis can be used to deal with sequential reprogramming, which is another promising direction in computational controllability, potentially enabling more efficient therapies [4,5].

1. Barabási A-L, Gulbahce N, Loscalzo J (2011) Network medicine: a network-based approach to human disease. Nature Reviews Genetics, 12, 56–68. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg2918
2. Paulevé L (2023) Marker and source-marker reprogramming of Most Permissive Boolean networks and ensembles with BoNesis. arXiv, ver. 2 peer-reviewed and recommended by Peer Community in Mathematical and Computational Biology. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2207.13307
3. Paulevé L, Kolčák J, Chatain T, Haar S (2020) Reconciling qualitative, abstract, and scalable modeling of biological networks. Nature Communications, 11, 4256. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-18112-5
4. Mandon H, Su C, Pang J, Paul S, Haar S, Paulevé L (2019) Algorithms for the Sequential Reprogramming of Boolean Networks. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Computational Biology and Bioinformatics, 16, 1610–1619. https://doi.org/10.1109/TCBB.2019.2914383
5. Pardo J, Ivanov S, Delaplace F (2021) Sequential reprogramming of biological network fate. Theoretical Computer Science, 872, 97–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tcs.2021.03.013

In the hereby recommended paper [1], Delaney, Letten and Engelstädter study the appearance of antibiotic resistance(s) in a bacterial population subject to a combination of two antibiotics \( A \) and \( B \), in concentrations \( C_A \) and \( C_B \) respectively. Their goal was to find optimal values of \( C_A \) and \( C_B \) that minimize the risk of evolutionary rescue, under the unusual assumption that resistance mutations to either antibiotic are not equally likely.

The authors introduce a stochastic model assuming that the susceptible population grows like a supercritical birth-death process which becomes subcritical in the presence of antibiotics (and exactly critical for a certain concentration c of a single antibiotic): the effect of each antibiotic is either to reduce division rate (bacteriostatic drug) or to enhance death rate (bacteriocidal drug) by a factor which has a sigmoid functional dependence on antibiotic concentration. 

Now at each division, a resistance mutation can arise, with probability \( \mu_A \) for a resistance to antibiotic \( A \) and with probability \( \mu_B \) for a resistance to antibiotic \( B \).

The goal of the paper is to find the optimal ratio of drug concentrations \( C_A \) and \( C_B \) when these are subject to a constrain \( C_A + C_B = c \), depending on the ratio of mutation rates. Assuming total resistance and no cross resistance, the authors show that the optimal concentrations are given by \( C_A = c/(1+\sqrt{\mu_A/\mu_B }) \) and \( C_B = c/(1+\sqrt{\mu_B/\mu_A}) \), which leads to the beautiful result that the optimal ratio \( C_A/C_B \) is equal to the square root of \( \mu_B/\mu_A \).

The authors have made a great job completing their initial submission by simulations of model extensions, relaxing assumptions like single antibiotic mode, absence of competition, absence of cost of resistance, sharp cutoff in toxicity… and comparing the results obtained by simulation to their mathematical result.

The paper is very clearly written and any reader interested in antibiotic resistance, stochastic modeling of bacterial populations and/or evolutionary rescue will enjoy reading it. Let me thank the authors for their patience and for their constant willingness to comply with the reviewers’ and recommender’s demands during the reviewing process. 

Reference

Oscar Delaney, Andrew D. Letten, Jan Engelstaedter (2025) Optimal antimicrobial dosing combinations when drug-resistance mutation rates differ. bioRxiv, ver.3 peer-reviewed and recommended by PCI Mathematical and Computational Biology https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.05.04.592498

We often use genetic data from a single site, or even a single individual, to estimate the history of effective population size, Ne, over time scales in excess of a million years. Mazet and Noûs [2] emphasize that such estimates may not mean what they seem to mean.  The ups and downs of Ne may reflect changes in gene flow or selection, rather than changes in census population size. In fact, gene flow may cause Ne to decline even if the rate of gene flow has remained constant.

Consider for example the estimates of archaic population size in Fig. 1, which show an apparent decline in population size between roughly 700 kya and 300 kya. It is tempting to interpret this as evidence of a declining number of individuals, but that is not the only plausible interpretation.

Each of these estimates is based on the genome of a single diploid individual. As we trace the ancestry of that individual backwards into the past, the ancestors are likely to remain in the same locale for at least a generation or two. Being neighbors, there’s a chance they will mate. This implies that in the recent past, the ancestors of a sampled individual lived in a population of small effective size.

As we continue backwards into the past, there is more and more time for the ancestors to move around on the landscape. The farther back we go, the less likely they are to be neighbors, and the less likely they are to mate. In this more remote past, the ancestors of our sample lived in a population of larger effective size, even if neither the number of individuals nor the rate of gene flow has changed.

For awhile then, Ne should increase as we move backwards into the past. This process does not continue forever, because eventually the ancestors will be randomly distributed across the population as a whole. We therefore expect Ne to increase towards an asymptote, which represents the effective size of the entire population.

This simple story gets more complex if there is change in either the census size or the rate of gene flow.  Mazet and Noûs [2] have shown that one can mimic real estimates of population history using models in which the rate of gene flow varies, but census size does not. This implies that the curves in Fig. 1 are ambiguous. The observed changes in Ne could reflect changes in census size, gene flow, or both.

For  this  reason,  Mazet  and  Noûs [2]  would  like  to  replace  the  term  “effective  population size” with an alternative, the “inverse instantaneous coalescent rate,” or IIRC. I don’t share this preference, because the same critique could be made of all definitions of Ne. For example, Wright [3, p. 108] showed in 1931 that Ne varies in response to the sex ratio, and this implies that changes in Ne need not involve any change in census size. This is also true when populations are geographically structured, as Mazet and Noûs [2] have emphasized, but this does not seem to require a new vocabulary.

Figure 1: PSMC estimates of the history of population size based on three archaic genomes: two Neanderthals and a Denisovan [1].

Mazet  and  Noûs  [2]  also  show  that  estimates  of  Ne  can  vary  in  response  to  selection.   It is not hard to see why such an effect might exist. In genomic regions affected by directional or purifying selection, heterozygosity is low, and common ancestors tend to be recent. Such regions may contribute to small estimates of recent Ne. In regions under balancing selection, heterozygosity is high, and common ancestors tend to be ancient. Such regions may contribute to large estimates of ancient Ne. The magnitude of this effect presumably depends on the fraction of the genome under selection and the rate of recombination.

In summary, this article describes several processes that can affect estimates of the history of effective population size. This makes existing estimates ambiguous. For example, should we interpret Fig. 1 as evidence of a declining number of archaic individuals, or in terms of gene flow among archaic subpopulations? But these questions also present research opportunities. If the observed decline reflects gene flow, what does this imply about the geographic structure of archaic populations? Can we resolve the ambiguity by integrating samples from different locales, or using archaeological estimates of population density or interregional trade?

REFERENCES

[1] Fabrizio Mafessoni et al. “A high-coverage Neandertal genome from Chagyrskaya Cave”. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA  117.26 (2020), pp. 15132–15136.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2004944117

[2] Olivier Mazet and Camille Noûs. “Population genetics: coalescence rate and demographic parameters inference”. arXiv, ver. 2 peer-reviewed and recommended by Peer Community In Mathematical and Computational Biology (2023). https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2207.02111.

[3] Sewall Wright. “Evolution in mendelian populations”. Genetics 16 (1931), pp. 97–159. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2207.0211110.1093/genetics/16.2.97.

When sequencing more and more genomes of a species (or a group of closely related species), a natural question to ask is how quickly the total number of distinct sequences grows as a function of the total number of sequenced genomes. A similar question can be asked about the number of distinct genes or the number of distinct k-mers (length-k subsequences).
 
The paper “Revisiting pangenome openness with k-mers” [1] describes a general mathematical framework that can be applied to each of these versions. A genome is abstractly seen as a set of “items” and a species as a set of genomes. The question then is how fast the function f_tot, the average size of the union of m genomes of the species, grows as a function of m. Basically, the faster the growth the more “open” the species is. More precisely, the function f_tot can be described by a power law plus a constant and the openness $\alpha$ refers to one minus the exponent $\gamma$ of the power law.
 
With these definitions one can make a distinction between “open” genomes ($\alpha < 1$​) where the total size f_tot tends to infinity and “closed” genomes  ($\alpha > 1$)​ where the total size f_tot tends to a constant. However, performing this classification is difficult in practice and the relevance of such a disjunction is debatable. Hence, the authors of the current paper focus on estimating the openness parameter $\alpha$.
 
The definition of openness given in the paper was suggested by one of the reviewers and fixes a problem with a previous definition (in which it was mathematically impossible for a pangenome to be closed).
 
While the framework is very general, the authors apply it by using k-mers to estimate pangenome openness. This is an innovative approach because, even though k-mers are used frequently in pangenomics, they had not been used before to estimate openness. One major advantage of using k-mers is that it can be applied directly to data consisting of sequencing reads, without the need for preprocessing. In addition, k-mers also cover non-coding regions of the genomes which is in particular relevant when studying openness of eukaryotic species.
 
The method is evaluated on 12 bacterial pangenomes with impressive results. The estimated openness is very close to the results of several gene-based tools (Roary, Pantools and BPGA) but the running time is much better: it is one to three orders of magnitude faster than the other methods.
 
Another appealing aspect of the method is that it computes the function f_tot exactly using a method that was known in the ecology literature but had not been noticed in the pangenomics field. The openness is then estimated by fitting a power law function.
 
Finally, the paper [1] offers a clear presentation of the problem, the approach and the results, with nice examples using real data.

References

[1] Parmigiani L., Wittler, R. and Stoye, J. (2024) "Revisiting pangenome openness with k-mers". bioRxiv, ver. 4 peer-reviewed and recommended by Peer Community In Mathematical and Computational Biology. https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.11.15.516472

How fast and how deep do animals breathe, and how does this depend on how active they are? To answer this question, one needs to dig deeply into how breathing works and what biophysical processes it involves. And one needs to think about body size.

It is impressive how nature adapts the same body plan – e.g. the skeletal structure of mammals – to various shapes and sizes. From mice to whales, also the functioning of most organs remains the same; they are just differently scaled. Scaling does not just mean “making bigger or smaller”. As already noted by Galilei, body shapes change as they are adapted to body dimensions, and the same holds for physiological variables. Many such variables, for instance, heartbeat rates, follow scaling laws of the form y~x^a, where x denotes body mass and the exponent a is typically a multiple of ¼ [1]. These unusual exponents – instead of multiples of ⅓, which would be expected from simple geometrical scaling – are why these laws are called “allometric”. Kleiber’s law for metabolic rates, with a scaling exponent of ¾, is a classic example [2]. As shown by G. West, allometric laws can be explained through a few simple steps [1]. In his models, he focused on network-like organs such as the vascular system and assumed that these systems show a self-similar structure, with a fixed minimal unit (for instance, capillaries) but varying numbers of hierarchy levels depending on body size. To determine the flow through such networks, he employed biophysical models and optimality principles (for instance, assuming that oxygen must be transported at a minimal mechanical effort), and showed that the solutions – and the physiological variables – respect the known scaling relations.

The paper “The origin of the allometric scaling of lung ventilation in mammals“ by Noël et al. [3], applies this thinking to the depth and rate of breathing in mammals. Scaling laws describing breathing in resting animals have been known since the 1950s [4], with exponents of 1 (for tidal volume) and -¼ (for breathing frequency). Equipped with a detailed biophysical model, Noël et al. revisit this question, extending these laws to other metabolic regimes. Their starting point is a model of the human lung, developed previously by two of the authors [5], which assumes that we meet our oxygen demand with minimal lung movements. To state this as an optimization problem, the model combines two submodels: a mechanical model describing the energetic effort of ventilation and a highly detailed model of convection and diffusion in self-similar lung geometries. Breathing depths and rates are computed by numerical optimization, and to obtain results for mammals of any size many of the model parameters are described by known scaling laws. As expected, the depth of breathing (measured by tidal volume) scales almost proportionally with body mass and increases with metabolic demand, while the breathing rate decreases with body mass, with an exponent of about -¼. However, the laws for the breathing rate hold only for basal activity; at higher metabolic rates, which are modeled here for the first time, the exponent deviates strongly from this value, in line with empirical data.

Why is this paper important? The authors present a highly complex model of lung physiology that integrates a wide range of biophysical details and passes a difficult test: the successful prediction of unexplained scaling exponents. These scaling relations may help us transfer insights from animal models to humans and in reverse: data for breathing during exercise, which are easy to measure in humans, can be extrapolated to other species. Aside from the scaling laws, the model also reveals physiological mechanisms. In the larger lung branches, oxygen is transported mainly by air movement (convection), while in smaller branches air flow is slow and oxygen moves by diffusion. The transition between these regimes can occur at different depths in the lung: as the authors state, “the localization of this transition determines how ventilation should be controlled to minimize its energetic cost at any metabolic regime”. In the model, the optimal location for the transition depends on oxygen demand [5, 6]: the transition occurs deeper in the lung in exercise regimes than at rest, allowing for more oxygen to be taken up. However, the effects of this shift depend on body size: while small mammals generally use the entire exchange surface of their lungs, large mammals keep a reserve for higher activities, which becomes accessible as their transition zone moves at high metabolic rates. Hence, scaling can entail qualitative differences between species!

Altogether, the paper shows how the dynamics of ventilation depend on lung morphology. But this may also play out in the other direction: if energy-efficient ventilation depends on body activity, and therefore on ecological niches, a niche may put evolutionary pressures on lung geometry. Hence, by understanding how deep and fast animals breathe, we may also learn about how behavior, physiology, and anatomy co-evolve.

References

[1] West GB, Brown JH, Enquist BJ (1997) A General Model for the Origin of Allometric Scaling Laws in Biology. Science 276 (5309), 122–126. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.276.5309.122

[2] Kleiber M (1947) Body size and metabolic rate. Physiological Reviews, 27, 511–541. https://doi.org/10.1152/physrev.1947.27.4.511

[3] Noël F., Karamaoun C., Dempsey J. A. and Mauroy B. (2021) The origin of the allometric scaling of lung's ventilation in mammals. arXiv, 2005.12362, ver. 6 peer-reviewed and recommended by Peer community in Mathematical and Computational Biology. https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.12362

[4] Otis AB, Fenn WO, Rahn H (1950) Mechanics of Breathing in Man. Journal of Applied Physiology, 2, 592–607. https://doi.org/10.1152/jappl.1950.2.11.592

[5] Noël F, Mauroy B (2019) Interplay Between Optimal Ventilation and Gas Transport in a Model of the Human Lung. Frontiers in Physiology, 10, 488. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2019.00488

[6] Sapoval B, Filoche M, Weibel ER (2002) Smaller is better—but not too small: A physical scale for the design of the mammalian pulmonary acinus. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 99, 10411–10416. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.122352499