Differences in the collective behaviour of the genes in the cancerous and normal cell from the perspective of inverse statistical physics

Karimi Rizi, A; Zamani, M; Shirazi, A; Jafari, GH R

doi:10.29252/ijpr.18.4.633

Differences in the collective behaviour of the genes in the cancerous and normal cell from the perspective of inverse statistical physics

Authors

A Karimi Rizi

M Zamani

A Shirazi

GH R Jafari

https://doi.org/10.29252/ijpr.18.4.633

Abstract

Cancer is commonly known as a disease of the genes. Almost all the studies about cancers are based on finding the effective genes for each cancer and most of the efforts for diagnosing or curing cancer have faced several challenges. From the point of view of complexity, collective behaviors that have emerged from the interactions of many-body systems are not solely describable by knowing about the system’s building blocks (genes) and we cannot understand what happens at a higher level of organization by just knowing how each element works at a lower scale! We know, each gene’s expression affects other genes expression levels and this correlation causes a collective behavior which that alters the expression levels of the genes. In this study, instead of following the common reductionist view, we use the techniques of inverse statistical physics and infer the interaction matrix of the genes. Then, by applying the balance theory, we show the differences between the social behavior of cancer genes and normal genes as a whole. Our results show that the energy distribution of triads formed in the interaction networks behaves in a power-law manner and the energy of the normal network is higher than the cancer network.

Keywords

cancer

inverse statistical physics

inference problem

complex networks

gene regulatory network

balance theory

1. “What Is Cancer?”. National Cancer Institute (United states), 09 February 2015.
2. GBD 2015 Disease and Injury Incidence and Prevalence, Collaborators. (8 October 2016). "Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 310 diseases and injuries, 1990–2015: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015". Lancet. 388 (10053) 1545.
3. “World Cancer Report 2014”, World Health Organization (2014).
4. Genes & Gene Expression". The Virtual Library of Biochemistry and Cell Biology. BioChemWeb.org. 2005-12-04. Retrieved 2008-06-10
5. Michele Castellana, William Bialek, “Inverse spin glass and related maximum entropy problems”, arXiv:1312.0886
6. "The Cancer Genome Atlas - Data Portal", https://tcga-data.nci.nih.gov/
7. Huang, Kerson, “Statistical mechanics”, (2nd edition), Wiley (1987).
8. R Srichard and S MDebora, Chris Sander https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004182
9. Friedman, Jerome and Hastie, Trevor and Tibshirani, Robert, “Sparse Inverse Covariance Estimation With the Graphical Lasso”, Biostatistics. Biometrika Trust (2008).
10. Heider, Fritz, “The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations”, John Wiley & Sons (1958).
11. A M Belaza, K Hoefman, J Ryckebusch, A Bramson, van den, M Heuvel, and K Schoors (2017) Statistical Physics of Balance Theory (2017) e0183696.
12. Seth A. Marvel, Steven H. Strogatz, Jon M. Kleinberg, “The energy landscape of social balance”, arXiv:0906.2893
13. L Hedayatifar, F Hassanibesheli, A H Shirazi, S V Farahani, and G R Jafari, Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications 483 (2017) 109.
14. J K M Saeedian, N Azimi-Tafreshi, G R Jafari Physical Review E 95 (2017) 022314
15. Michael Ruse, “Entry for "reductionism". The Oxford Companion to Philosophy (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press (2005).