Abstract
Data streams for a personalised breast cancer programme could include collections of image data, tumour genome sequencing, likely at the single cell level, and liquid biopsies (DNA and Circulating Tumour Cells (CTCs)). Although they are rich in information, the full power of these datasets will not be realised until we develop methods to model the cancer systems and conduct analyses that transect these streams. In addition to machine learning approaches, we believe that logical reasoning has the potential to provide help in clinical decision support systems for doctors. We develop a logical approach to modelling cancer progression, focusing on mutation analysis and CTCs, which include the appearance of driver mutations, the transformation of normal cells to cancer cells in the breast, their circulation in the blood, and their path to the bone. Our long term goal is to improve the prediction of survival of metastatic breast cancer patients. We model the behaviour of the CTCs as a transition system, and we use Linear Logic (LL) to reason about our model. We consider several important properties about CTCs and prove them in LL. In addition, we formalise our results in the Coq Proof Assistant, thus providing formal proofs of our model. We believe that our results provide a promising proof-of-principle and can be generalised to other cancer types and groups of driver mutations.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Alur, R., et al.: Hybrid modeling and simulation of biomolecular networks. In: Di Benedetto, M.D., Sangiovanni-Vincentelli, A. (eds.) HSCC 2001. LNCS, vol. 2034, pp. 19–32. Springer, Heidelberg (2001). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45351-2_6
Andreoli, J.: Logic programming with focusing proofs in linear logic. J. Log. Comput. 2(3), 297–347 (1992)
Antczak, C., Mahida, J., Singh, C., Calder, P., Djaballah, H.: A high content assay to assess cellular fitness. Comb. Chem. High Throughput Screening 17(1), 12–24 (2014)
Ascolani, G., Occhipinti, A., Lio, P.: Modeling circulating tumour cells for personalised survival prediction in metastatic breast cancer. PLoS Comput. Biol. 11(5) (2015)
Bellomo, N., Preziosi, L.: Modelling and mathematical problems related to tumor evolution and its interaction with the immune system. Math. Comput. Model. 32(3), 413–452 (2000)
Bertot, Y., Castéran, P.: Interactive Theorem Proving and Program Development. Coq’Art: The Calculus of Inductive Constructions. Springer, Heidelberg (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-07964-5
Blinov, M.L., Faeder, J.R., Goldstein, B., Hlavacek, W.S.: BioNetGen: software for rule-based modeling of signal transduction based on the interactions of molecular domains. Bioinformatics 20(17), 3289–3291 (2004)
Caravagna, G., et al.: Detecting repeated cancer evolution from multi-region tumor sequencing data. Nature Methods 15(9), 707–714 (2018)
Chaouiya, C., Naldi, A., Remy, E., Thieffry, D.: Petri net representation of multi-valued logical regulatory graphs. Natural Comput. 10(2), 727–750 (2011)
Clarke, E.M., Henzinger, T.A., Veith, V., Bloem, R.: Handbook of Model Checking. Springer, Cham (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10575-8
Danos, V., Laneve, C.: Formal molecular biology. Theoret. Comput. Sci. 325(1), 69–110 (2004)
de Maria, E., Despeyroux, J., Felty, A.P.: A logical framework for systems biology. In: Fages, F., Piazza, C. (eds.) FMMB 2014. LNCS, vol. 8738, pp. 136–155. Springer, Cham (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10398-3_10
Despeyroux, J., Chaudhuri, K.: A hybrid linear logic for constrained transition systems. In: Post-Proceedings of TYPES 2013. Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics, vol. 26, pp. 150–168. Schloss Dagstuhl-Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik (2014)
Despeyroux, J., Olarte, C., Pimentel, E.: Hybrid and subexponential linear logics. Electron. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 332, 95–111 (2017)
Gregorio, A.D., Bowling, S., Rodriguez, T.A.: Cell competition and its role in the regulation of cell fitness from development to cancer. Dev. Cell 38(6), 621–634 (2016)
Ding, J., Trippa, L., Zhong, X., Parmigiani, G.: Hierarchical Bayesian analysis of somatic mutation data in cancer. Ann. Appl. Stat. 7(2), 883–903 (2013)
Enderling, H., Chaplain, M.A., Anderson, A.R., Vaidya, J.S.: A mathematical model of breast cancer development, local treatment and recurrence. J. Theor. Biol. 246(2), 245–259 (2007)
Fages, F., Soliman, S., Chabrier-Rivier, N.: Modelling and querying interaction networks in the biochemical abstract machine BIOCHAM. J. Biolog. Phys. Chem. 4(2), 64–73 (2004)
Gavaghan, D., Brady, J.M., Behrenbruch, C., Highnam, R., Maini, P.: Breast cancer: Modelling and detection. Comput. Math. Methods Med. 4(1), 3–20 (2002)
Girard, J.Y.: Linear logic. Theor. Comput. Sci. 50, 1–102 (1987)
Hofestädt, R., Thelen, S.: Quantitative modeling of biochemical networks. In: Silico Biology, vol. 1, pp. 39–53. IOS Press (1998)
Iuliano, A., Occhipinti, A., Angelini, C., Feis, I.D., Lió, P.: Cancermarkers selection using network-based Cox regression: a methodological andcomputational practice. Front. Physiol. 7 (2016)
Iuliano, A., Occhipinti, A., Angelini, C., Feis, I.D., Liò, P.: Combining pathway identification and breast cancer survival prediction viascreening-network methods. Front. Genet. 9 (2018)
de Jong, H., Gouzé, J.L., Hernandez, C., Page, M., Sari, T., Geiselmann, J.: Qualitative simulation of genetic regulatory networks using piecewise-linear models. Bull. Math. Biol. 66(2), 301–340 (2004)
Kingman, J.F.C.: Poisson Processes, Oxford Studies in Probability, vol. 3. The Clarendon Press, Oxford University Press, New York (1993). Oxford Science Publications
Knutsdottir, H., Palsson, E., Edelstein-Keshet, L.: Mathematical model of macrophage-facilitated breast cancer cells invasion. J. Theor. Biol. (2014)
Mushlin, S.B., Greene, H.L.: Decision Making in Medicine: An Algorithmic Approach, 3e (Clinical Decision Making Series), 3rd edn. (2009)
Olarte, C., Chiarugi, D., Falaschi, M., Hermith, D.: A proof theoretic view of spatial and temporal dependencies in biochemical systems. Theor. Comput. Sci. 641, 25–42 (2016)
Phillips, A., Cardelli, L.: A correct abstract machine for the stochastic pi-calculus. In: BioConcur: Workshop on Concurrent Models in Molecular Biology (2004)
Regev, A., Panina, E.M., Silverman, W., Cardelli, L., Shapiro, E.: BioAmbients: an abstraction for biological compartments. Theor. Comput. Sci. 325(1), 141–167 (2004)
Regev, A., Silverman, W., Shapiro, E.Y.: Representation and simulation of biochemical processes using the \(\pi \)-calculus process algebra. In: Proceedings of the 6th Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing, pp. 459–470 (2001)
Rogers, Z.N., et al.: A quantitative and multiplexed approach to uncover the fitness landscape of tumor suppression in vivo. Nat. Methods 14(7), 737–742 (2017)
Savage, N.: Computing cancer software models of complex tissues and disease are yielding a better understanding of cancer and suggesting potential treatments. Nature 491, s62–s63 (2012)
Shihab, H.A., et al.: An integrative approach to predicting the functional effects of non-coding and coding sequence variation. Bioinformatics 31(10), 1536–1543 (2015)
Talcott, C., Dill, D.: Multiple representations of biological processes. Trans. Comput. Syst. Biol. 221–245 (2006)
Venkataram, S., et al.: Development of a comprehensive genotype-to-fitness map of adaptation-driving mutations in yeast. Cell 166(6), 1585–1596.e22 (2016)
Wynn, M.L., Consul, N., Merajver, S.D., Schnell, S.: Logic-based models in systems biology: a predictive and parameter-free network analysis method. Integr. Biol. 4(11), 1323 (2012)
Xavier, B., Olarte, C., Reis, G., Nigam, V.: Mechanizing linear logic in Coq. Electr. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 338, 219–236 (2018)
Acknowledgements
We thank the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments on an earlier draft of this paper. The work of Olarte was supported by CNPq, the project FWF START Y544-N23 and by CAPES, Colciencias, and INRIA via the STIC AmSud project EPIC (Proc. No 88881.117603/2016-01).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendices
Appendix
A Proof of the Adequacy Results
Theorem 1:
Adequacy. Let s be a state and . Then, \((s',r,d)\in S_s\) iff focusing on the encoding of r leads to the following derivation.

Proof
The encoding of the rule r is a bipole [2] (i.e., a formula that, being focused, will produce a single positive and a single negative phases) of the form

Focusing on this formula (stored in ) necessarily produces the following derivation, starting with rule \(D_C\) (decision on the classical context):

Here \((\varDelta , \varDelta ')\) is a partition of the atoms in . Since r is fireable in the state s, then \(\varDelta \) must contain all the atoms needed to prove
and
. Moreover, \(\varDelta '\) must correspond to the components not affected by the application of r, i.e.,
. Hence, derivation \(\pi \) takes the form:

This means that . On the other hand, derivation \(\psi \) starts with the release rule R (since \(\otimes _L\) must be introduced in the negative phase and then, focusing is lost) and we have

In the last sequent, the negative phase ends. Note that the set corresponds to
.
Corollary 1:
Adequacy. Let s and \(s'\) be two states. Then iff the sequent
is provable.
Proof
Note that after the negative phase, we have:

where \(\varDelta \) is the multiset of atoms in . We cannot focus on those atoms (since they are positive). Moreover, we cannot focus on
(since the atom
is not in \(\varDelta \) nor in
). Hence, we can only focus on the formulas in
. We conclude by focusing on the encoding of r and using Theorem 1.
The proof of Corollary 2 follows easily from Theorem 1.
B Proof of the Properties of the Model
Property 1
The following sequent is provable:

Proof
After the negative phase (using the rules \(\forall _R\), \(\otimes _L\), ), we have only one proof obligation:
, where G is

Note that the only non-atomic formulas are G and those formulas in . The proof proceeds by focusing, several times, on the formulas in
thus transforming the state
. In the end, we focus on G and the proof ends. Using the rules of the system as macro logical rules (see Corollary 2), we have the following:

In the above derivation, we note that, in the last sequent (bottom-up) we already reach the state , with delay \(t_d=d_{42}(3)+d_{52}(5)+d_{72}(7)\). Hence, the derivation \(\pi \) corresponds to focusing and decomposing entirely the formula G:

Property 2
The following sequent is provable:

Proof
After the negative phase (using the rules \(\forall _R\), \(\otimes _L\), \(\oplus _L\), ), we have two proof obligations (due to \(\oplus _L\))

where G is the goal

Let us start with the proof obligation (PO1). Similar to the proof of Property 1, we start by focusing on the formulas in so that we may later focus on G. One of the possible paths/proofs leading to the conclusion of the goal G is the following:

In such a derivation, the rules and
could be used zero or more times - as long as the fitness remains positive. Moreover, in the last sequent (bottom-up) we have already reached the state
, with delay \(t_d=d_{40}(3)+d_{42}(2)+d_{50}(4)+d_{52}(3)+d_{72}(5)\) and derivation \(\pi \) proceeds as in the proof of Property 1.
The proof obligation (PO2) can be discharged similarly by several paths, depending (as in PO1) on the order of mutations and
and the eventually many passenger mutations (rules \(bl_{ec0}, bl_{ecc0}, bl_{ecc0}\), and \(bl_{ecm0}\)). We give here the shortest path and one of the longest paths, as an illustration.

Note that along with the time delay \(t_d\) we are looking for, the proof provides also the fitness of the extravasating CTC.
Property 3
The following sequents are provable:

Proof
In this case we present the Coq script needed to discard this proof. We prove separately the two sequents above:

Property 4
Let \(\varDelta \) be a multiset of atoms of the form . Then, in any derivation of the form

we have .
Proof
We know that the above derivation must start by focusing on one of the formulas in (Theorem
in our formalisation). Then, we proceed by case analysis on all of the rules. If the rule is not fireable, then we cannot focus on that rule since the initial rule cannot be applied (and the above derivation is not valid). If the rule can be fired, due to Corollary 2, we know that the resulting St is necessarily the one-step transformation of
, that, in this case, satisfies
.
Property 5
Let \(\varDelta \) be a multiset of atoms of the form . Then, in any derivation of the form

with m containing , it must be the case that
-
1.
either
,
-
2.
or
,
-
3.
or
with \(m'\) being as m plus an additional mutation,
-
4.
or
with
.
Proof
In this case we present the Coq script needed to discard this proof. Definition
is just a shorthand to denote the goal we need to prove.

Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Despeyroux, J., Felty, A., Liò, P., Olarte, C. (2019). A Logical Framework for Modelling Breast Cancer Progression. In: Chaves, M., Martins, M. (eds) Molecular Logic and Computational Synthetic Biology. MLCSB 2018. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 11415. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-19432-1_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-19432-1_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-19431-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-19432-1
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)