skip to main content
10.1145/3233188.3233202acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesnanocomConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Applying molecular communication theory to estimate information loss in cell signal transduction: an approach based on cancer transcriptomics

Published:05 September 2018Publication History

ABSTRACT

Signal transduction pathways are chemical communication channels embedded in biological cells, and they propagate information from the environment to regulate cell growth and proliferation, among other cell's behaviors. Disruptions in the normal functionalities of these channels, mostly resulting from mutations in the underlying genetic code, can be leading causes of diseases, such as cancer. Motivated by the increasing availability of public data on genetic code expression in cell tissue samples, i.e., transcriptomics, and the emerging field of molecular communication, a novel data-driven approach based on experimental data mining and communication theory is proposed in this paper. This approach is an alternative to existing computational models of these pathways in the context of cancer, which often appear to oversimplify the complexity of the underlying mechanisms. In contrast, a computational methodology is here derived to estimate the difference in information propagation performance of signal transduction pathways in healthy and diseased cells, solely based on transcriptomic data. This methodology is built upon a molecular communication abstraction of information flow through the pathway and its correlation with the expression of the underlying DNA genes. Numerical results are presented for a case study based on the JAK-STAT pathway in kidney cancer, and correlated with the occurrence of pathway gene mutations in the available data.

References

  1. I. F. Akyildiz, J. M. Jornet, and M. Pierobon. Nanonetworks: A new frontier in communications. Communications of the ACMs, 54(11):84--89, November 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. I.F. Akyildiz, M. Pierobon, S. Balasubramaniam, andY. Koucheryavy. The internet ofbio-nano things. IEEE Communications Magazine, 53(3):32--40, March 2015.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. B. Alaei-Mahabadi, J. Bhadury, J. W. Karlsson, J. A. Nilsson, and E. Larsson. Global analysis of somatic structural genomic alterations and their impact on gene expression in diverse human cancers. PNAS, 113(48):13768--13773, 2016.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. J. Bachmann, A. Raue, M. Schilling, V. Becker, J. Timmer, and U. Klingmuller. Predictive mathematical models of cancer signalling pathways. J Intern Med, 271: 155--165, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. T. M. Cover and J. A. Thomas. Elements of Information Theory, 2nd Edition. Wiley, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. F. Edfors, F. Danielsson, B. M. Hallström, L. Käll, E. Lundberg, F. Pontén, B. Forsström, and M. Uhlén. Gene-specific correlation of rna and protein levels in human cells and tissues. Mol Syst Biol, 12(10):883, 2016.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. J. Fan. Local polynomial modelling and its applications: From linear regression to nonlinear regression. Monographs on Statistics and Applied Probability. Chapman & Hall/CRC, pages 1269--1275, 1996.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. J. Fisher and T. Henzinger. Executable cell biology. Nat Biotechnol, 25(11): 1239--49, November 2007.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. E. Gonçalves, J. Bucher, A. Ryll, J. Niklas, K. Mauch, S. Klamt, M. Rocha, and J. Saez-Rodriguez. Bridging the layers: towards integration of signal transduction, regulation and metabolism into mathematical models. MolecularBioSystems, 9 (7):1576--1583, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. I. Habibi, E. S. Emamian, and A. Abdi. Quantitative analysis of intracellular communication and signaling errors in signaling networks. BMC Systems Biology, 8(89):1--15, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. C. Harper, M. Pierobon, and M. Magarini. Estimating information exchange performance of engineered cell-to-cell molecular communications: a computational approach. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Communications (TNFOCOM), April 2018.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. D. A. Harrison. The jak/stat pathway. Cold Spring Harbor perspectives in biology, 4(3):a011205, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. W.-C. Hsu, C.-C. Liu, F. Chang, and S.-S. Chen. Cancer classification: Mutual information, target network and strategies of therapy. Journal of Clinical Bioinformatics, 2(16):1--11, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. C. Kandoth, M. D. McLellan, F. Vandin, K. Ye, B. Niu, C. Lu, M. Xie, Q. Zhang, J. F. McMichael, M. A. Wyczalkowski, M. D. M. Leiserson, C. A. Miller, J. S. Welch, M. J. Walter, M. C. Wendl, T. J. Ley, R. K. Wilson, B. J. Raphael, and L. Ding. Mutational landscape and significance across 12 major cancer types. Nature, 502: 333--339, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. M. Kanehisa, S. Goto, Y. Sato, M. Furumichi, and M. Tanabe. Kegg for integration and interpretation of large-scale molecular data sets. Nucleic acids research, 40 (D1):D109--D114, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. J. E. Ladbury and S. T. Arold. Noise in cellular signaling pathways: causes and effects. Trends Biochem Sci., 37(5):173--178, May 2012.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. R. Layek, A. Datta, M. Bittner, and E. R. Dougherty. Cancer therapy design based on pathway logic. BIOTNFORMATICS, 27(4):548--555, December 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. S. Mahner, C. Baasch, J. Schwarz, S. Hein, L. Wölber, F. Jänicke, and K. Milde-Langosch. C-fos expression is a molecular predictor of progression and survival in epithelial ovarian carcinoma. Br. J. Cancer, 99(8):1269--1275, October 2008.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. A. Marcone, M. Pierobon, and M. Magarini. A parity check analog decoder for molecular communication based on biological circuits. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Communications (TNFOCOM), May 2017.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. W. Materi and D. Wishart. Computational systems biology in drug discovery and development: methods and applications. DrugDiscov Today, 12(7--8):295--303, April 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. M. L. Metzker. Sequencing technologies - the next generation. Nat Rev Genet., 11 (l):31--46, January 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. D. L. Nelson and M. M. Cox. Lehninger Principles of Biochemistry, chapter 12.2, pages 425--429. W. H. Freeman, 2005.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. M. K. Pandey, G. Liu, T. K. Cooper, and K. M. Mulder. Knockdown of c-fos suppresses the growth of human colon carcinoma cells in athymic mice. Int J Cancer, 130(1):213--222, January 2012.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. A. Papoulis and S. U. Pillai. Probability, Random Variables and Stochastic Processes, 4th ed. McGraw-Hill, 2002.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. J. S. Rawlings, K. M. Rosier, and D. A. Harrison. The jak/stat signaling pathway. Journal of cell science, 117(8):1281--1283, 2004.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Z. Sakkaff, J. L. Catlett, M. Cashman, M. Pierobon, N. R. Buan, M. B. Cohen, and C. A. Kelley. End-to-end molecular communication channels in cell metabolism: an information theoretic study. In Proc. of the ACM International Conference on Nanoscale Computing and Communication (ACM Nano Com), September 2017. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. R. Sever and J. S. Brugge. Signal transduction in cancer. In Cold Spring Harb Per sped Med., volume 5, page a006098, 2015.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. K. Tomczak, P. Czerwińska, and M. Wiznerowicz. The cancer genome atlas (tcga): an immeasurable source of knowledge. Contemporary oncology, 19(1A):A68, 2015.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. B. Vogelstein, N. Papadopoulos, V. Velculescu, S. Zhou, L. Diaz, and K. K. Jr. Cancer genome landscapes. Science, 339(6127):1546--58, March 2013.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. D. H. R. Weinberg. Hallmarks of cancer: the next generation. Cell, 144(5):646--74, March 2011.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  1. Applying molecular communication theory to estimate information loss in cell signal transduction: an approach based on cancer transcriptomics

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Other conferences
      NANOCOM '18: Proceedings of the 5th ACM International Conference on Nanoscale Computing and Communication
      September 2018
      210 pages
      ISBN:9781450357111
      DOI:10.1145/3233188

      Copyright © 2018 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 5 September 2018

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate97of135submissions,72%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader