In the cell division cycle of budding yeast, START refers to a set of tightly linked events that prepare a cell for budding and DNA replication, and FINISH denotes the interrelated events by which the cell exits from mitosis and divides into mother and daughter cells. On the basis of recent progress made by molecular biologists in characterizing the genes and proteins that control START and FINISH, we crafted a new mathematical model of cell cycle progression in yeast. Our model exploits a natural separation of time scales in the cell cycle control network to construct a system of differential-algebraic equations for protein synthesis and degradation, post-translational modifications, and rapid formation and dissociation of multimeric complexes. The model provides a unified account of the observed phenotypes of 257 mutant yeast strains (98% of the 263 strains in the data set used to constrain the model). We then use the model to predict the phenotypes of 30 novel combinations of mutant alleles. Our comprehensive model of the molecular events controlling cell cycle progression in budding yeast has both explanatory and predictive power. Future experimental tests of the model’s predictions will be useful to refine the underlying molecular mechanism, to constrain the adjustable parameters of the model, and to provide new insights into how the cell division cycle is regulated in budding yeast.

BackgroundParameter estimation from experimental data is critical for mathematical modeling of protein regulatory networks. For realistic networks with dozens of species and reactions, parameter estimation is an especially challenging task. In this study, we present an approach for parameter estimation that is effective in fitting a model of the budding yeast cell cycle (comprising 26 nonlinear ordinary differential equations containing 126 rate constants) to the experimentally observed phenotypes (viable or inviable) of 119 genetic strains carrying mutations of cell cycle genes.ResultsStarting from an initial guess of the parameter values, which correctly captures the phenotypes of only 72 genetic strains, our parameter estimation algorithm quickly improves the success rate of the model to 105–111 of the 119 strains. This success rate is comparable to the best values achieved by a skilled modeler manually choosing parameters over many weeks. The algorithm combines two search and optimization strategies. First, we use Latin hypercube sampling to explore a region surrounding the initial guess. From these samples, we choose ∼20 different sets of parameter values that correctly capture wild type viability. These sets form the starting generation of differential evolution that selects new parameter values that perform better in terms of their success rate in capturing phenotypes. In addition to producing highly successful combinations of parameter values, we analyze the results to determine the parameters that are most critical for matching experimental outcomes and the most competitive strains whose correct outcome with a given parameter vector forces numerous other strains to have incorrect outcomes. These “most critical parameters” and “most competitive strains” provide biological insights into the model. Conversely, the “least critical parameters” and “least competitive strains” suggest ways to reduce the computational complexity of the optimization.ConclusionsOur approach proves to be a useful tool to help systems biologists fit complex dynamical models to large experimental datasets. In the process of fitting the model to the data, the tool identifies suggestive correlations among aspects of the model and the data.

Strategies for modeling the complex dynamical behavior of gene/protein regulatory networks have evolved over the last 50 years as both the knowledge of these molecular control systems and the power of computing resources have increased. Here, we review a number of common modeling approaches, including Boolean (logical) models, systems of piecewise-linear or fully non-linear ordinary differential equations, and stochastic models (including hybrid deterministic/stochastic approaches). We discuss the pro's and con's of each approach, to help novice modelers choose a modeling strategy suitable to their problem, based on the type and bounty of available experimental information. We illustrate different modeling strategies in terms of some abstract network motifs, and in the specific context of cell cycle regulation.

To understand the molecular mechanisms that regulate cell cycle progression in eukaryotes, a variety of mathematical modeling approaches have been employed, ranging from Boolean networks and differential equations to stochastic simulations. Each approach has its own characteristic strengths and weaknesses. In this paper, we propose a “standard component” modeling strategy that combines advantageous features of Boolean networks, differential equations and stochastic simulations in a framework that acknowledges the typical sorts of reactions found in protein regulatory networks. Applying this strategy to a comprehensive mechanism of the budding yeast cell cycle, we illustrate the potential value of standard component modeling. The deterministic version of our model reproduces the phenotypic properties of wild-type cells and of 125 mutant strains. The stochastic version of our model reproduces the cell-to-cell variability of wild-type cells and the partial viability of the CLB2-dbΔ clb5Δ mutant strain. Our simulations show that mathematical modeling with “standard components” can capture in quantitative detail many essential properties of cell cycle control in budding yeast.

No abstract