Boolean network models of cellular regulation: prospects and limitations

By Stefan Bornholdt. Journal of the Royal Society Interface, 2008

395 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

On the Use of the Hill Functions in Mathematical Models of Gene Regulatory Networks (2008, background): “Indeed, this supposition is behind Boolean-like models of gene regulatory networks, which are quite popular for networks involving a large number of genes [1].”
Universality in network dynamics (2013, neutral): “For example, threshold models used in social networks [50] and Boolean network models [51], whose node activities are discrete, are not obviously accounted for by (1).”
Colloquium: Criticality and dynamical scaling in living systems (2017, background): “…to analyze large networks as they reduce the overwhelming complexity of the real problem to a logical one, and they have been shown to successfully explain e.g. cell cycles (Aldana, 2003; Bornholdt, 2005, 2008; De Jong, 2002; Drossel, 2008; Gros, 2008; Kauffman, 1996, 1993; Serra et al., 2007).”
Sparse Additive Ordinary Differential Equations for Dynamic Gene Regulatory Network Modeling (2014, background): “…for GRN construction, such as information theory models (Steuer et al. 2002; Stuart et al. 2003); Boolean networks (Kauffman 1969; Thomas 1973; Bornholdt 2008); Bayesian networks (Heckerman 1996; Imoto et al. 2003; Needham et al. 2007; Werhli and Husmeier 2007); latent variable models…”