Comparison of two combinatorial models of global network dynamics

TL;DR

This paper compares two combinatorial models of biological network dynamics, demonstrating how continuous time ODE systems relate to discrete switching systems through a parameterized Morse graph correspondence.

Contribution

It introduces a method to associate a continuous time L-system with a discrete switching system and compares their global dynamics via Morse graphs.

Findings

Order-preserving map from switching to L-system Morse graphs

Surjective correspondence on attractors

Bijective on fixed point attractors

Abstract

Modeling the dynamics of biological networks introduces many challenges, among them the lack of first principle models, the size of the networks, and difficulties with parameterization. Discrete time Boolean networks and related continuous time switching systems provide a computationally accessible way to translate the structure of the network to predictions about the dynamics. Recent work has shown that the parameterized dynamics of switching systems can be captured by a combinatorial object, called a DSGRN database, that consists of a parameter graph characterizing a finite parameter space decomposition, whose nodes are assigned a Morse graph that captures global dynamics for all corresponding parameters. We show that for a given network there is a way to associate the same type of object by considering a continuous time ODE system with a continuous right-hand side, which we call an L-system. The main goal of this paper is to compare the two DSGRN databases for the same network. Since the L-systems can be thought of as perturbations (not necessarily small) of the switching systems, our results address the correspondence between global parameterized dynamics of switching systems and their perturbations. We show that, at corresponding parameters, there is an order preserving map from the Morse graph of the switching system to that of the L-system that is surjective on the set of attractors and bijective on the set of fixed point attractors. We provide important examples showing why this correspondence cannot be strengthened.