In previous sections an
lower bound on the number
of experiments even for the case of in-degree 2 was shown. Since
O(n2) experiments are impossible for yeast (n=6200), this
suggests that we cannot expect a single strategy identification
method for the gene regulatory network of yeast and that the
methods from the previous section should be employed only for
determining the local network structure. This leads us to develop
a strategy by which we can identify as many parts as possible
using O(n) experiments. In such a case, we should find a set of
edges E' such that
.
That is , we should find a
set of edges not including false positive edges.
Let
InfFrom(x) denote the set of nodes influenced by x
(excluding x itself). Note that
InfFrom(x) is not necessarily
determined uniquely because of inconsistent nodes. Only such nodes
x that
InfFrom(x) is determined uniquely will be considered.
Figure:
These cases satisfy
but do include cycles passing through node b.
Proposition
If
holds and there is no cycle including node b, then
the edge (a,b) appears in the gene regulatory network.
Note that the condition that there is no cycle including b can
not be removed from the above proposition. For example,
holds in both networks Fig.
14.12, but in each case, there not necessarily
exists an edge (a,b). Note, that three nodes satisfy
in case (i) while only one node
satisfies this condition in case (ii). Although testing the
existence of a cycle may require an exponential number of
experiments as in Prop. 14.1, it is
expected that such cases as in Fig. 14.12 seldom
occur. Therefore, if only one node b satisfies
,
we may conclude edge (a,b) appears in the
network. Moreover, if we can identify the set of edges incoming to
b (by such a method as above), we can identify the boolean
function assigned to b by examining assignments only to incoming
nodes.
Next:Related Problems: Consistency and Up:Identification of Gene Regulatory Previous:More Efficient Strategies forPeer Itsik 2001-03-04