Hierarchical graphs for rulebased modeling of biochemical systems
 Nathan W Lemons^{1},
 Bin Hu^{2, 4} and
 William S Hlavacek^{2, 3, 4}Email author
DOI: 10.1186/147121051245
© Lemons et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2011
Received: 6 August 2010
Accepted: 2 February 2011
Published: 2 February 2011
Abstract
Background
In rulebased modeling, graphs are used to represent molecules: a colored vertex represents a component of a molecule, a vertex attribute represents the internal state of a component, and an edge represents a bond between components. Components of a molecule share the same color. Furthermore, graphrewriting rules are used to represent molecular interactions. A rule that specifies addition (removal) of an edge represents a class of association (dissociation) reactions, and a rule that specifies a change of a vertex attribute represents a class of reactions that affect the internal state of a molecular component. A set of rules comprises an executable model that can be used to determine, through various means, the systemlevel dynamics of molecular interactions in a biochemical system.
Results
For purposes of model annotation, we propose the use of hierarchical graphs to represent structural relationships among components and subcomponents of molecules. We illustrate how hierarchical graphs can be used to naturally document the structural organization of the functional components and subcomponents of two proteins: the protein tyrosine kinase Lck and the T cell receptor (TCR) complex. We also show that computational methods developed for regular graphs can be applied to hierarchical graphs. In particular, we describe a generalization of Nauty, a graph isomorphism and canonical labeling algorithm. The generalized version of the Nauty procedure, which we call HNauty, can be used to assign canonical labels to hierarchical graphs or more generally to graphs with multiple edge types. The difference between the Nauty and HNauty procedures is minor, but for completeness, we provide an explanation of the entire HNauty algorithm.
Conclusions
Hierarchical graphs provide more intuitive formal representations of proteins and other structured molecules with multiple functional components than do the regular graphs of current languages for specifying rulebased models, such as the BioNetGen language (BNGL). Thus, the proposed use of hierarchical graphs should promote clarity and better understanding of rulebased models.
Background
Our predictive understanding of cell signaling is limited, in part because it is difficult to fully capture in a conventional model, such as a system of coupled ordinary differential equations (ODEs), the systemlevel dynamics of molecular interactions that mediate cell signaling [1–3]. A major reason is combinatorial complexity [4–6], the potential for molecular interactions to generate a large number of chemically distinguishable molecular states and molecular complexes. One cause of combinatorial complexity is multisite phosphorylation [7–9]. Another is multivalent binding, which can mediate polymerizationlike reactions that produce a distribution of oligomers [10, 11]. Combinatorial complexity is an inherent feature of cell signaling, because a typical signaling protein contains multiple functional components [12]. These components can include a protein interaction domain, such as a Src homology 2 (SH2) or SH3 domain [13–15]; a catalytic domain, such as a protein tyrosine kinase (PTK) [16, 17]; a linear motif [18], such as a prolinerich sequence (PRS) recognized by SH3 domains or an immunoreceptor tyrosinebased activation or inhibition motif (ITAM or ITIM) [19, 20]; and one or more sites of posttranslational modification, with a multitude of modifications being possible [21]. Prominent examples of posttranslational modifications include serine, threonine and tyrosine (S/T/Y) phosphorylation, which is governed by antagonistic activities of kinases and phosphatases [22, 23], and ubiquitination, which is mediated by E3 ubiquitin ligases and other proteins [24, 25].
Combinatorial complexity limits the application of conventional modeling approaches such as ODEs, because specification of a conventional model requires that one be able to list the possible reactions in a system, or the equivalent [3]. To overcome this problem, a new modeling approach has been developed: rulebased modeling [3, 26]. In this approach, a model is specified in terms of rules for molecular interactions, rather than in terms of a list of possible reactions. Reactions are implied by rules, and these reactions can be found in principle and sometimes in practice [27–29], but there is no need to enumerate the possible reactions in a system to formulate or simulate a model [30–32]. A variety of algorithms and software tools have been developed for simulating rulebased models, including tools that account for steric effects and diffusion [27–45], and these tools have been applied to study various aspects of a number of cell signaling systems [34, 46–50]. It is now possible to formulate and simulate models that account comprehensively for the large numbers of molecules and molecular interactions that typically comprise a cell signaling system, which raises the issue of how to annotate and visualize largescale rulebased models.
Visualization of the elements of a rulebased model is natural to some extent because rulebased modeling, at least in some realizations, is based on or can be interpreted as being based on an underlying graphical formalism [51], which serves as the foundation for the BioNetGen language (BNGL) [29]. This modelspecification language is supported by anumber of softwaretools [27, 29, 32, 40, 44, 45]. Another modelspecification languageisKappa [26, 41, 52, 53], which is closely related to BNGL. In the BNGL formalism, which is briefly summarized in this section and described in greater detail below, graphs are used to represent molecules, and graphrewriting rules are used to represent molecular interactions.
In a rulebased model for a cell signaling system, the graphs of a model typically represent proteins, which are taken to be the building blocks of most chemical species in the system. These graphs can be visualized according to the conventions of Faeder et al. [54]. A graph representing a protein includes a colored vertex for each functional component of the protein. The color represents the type of protein being represented by a graph, i.e., the protein name is essentially the color of the graph representing the protein. The vertices of graphs can be associated with variable attributes to represent socalled internal states of components. An internal state is an abstraction that is often useful for representing, for example, the phosphorylation status of an amino acid residue. In graphs for molecular complexes, edges are used to represent bonds between molecular components. Thus, the composition and the connectivity of a molecular complex (but not usually its threedimensional structure) are tracked explicitly in a BNGLencoded rulebased model.
In general, the graphrewriting rules in a BNGLencoded model specify simple operations on graphs, which define the outcomes of molecular interactions: the addition of an edge to represent an association event, the removal of an edge to represent a dissociation event, or the change of a vertex attribute to represent an internal state change, such as a posttranslational modification event. Rules can also be specified for synthesis and degradation reactions [29]. Two important features of a rule are the specification of a reaction center (the set of components directly affected by a molecular interaction) and the specification of the molecular context in which a molecular interaction occurs, i.e., the necessary and sufficient conditions that must be satisfied for a reaction to occur. Another feature of a rule is an associated rate law, which is used to characterize all reactions implied by the rule up to statistical factors, which are derived from the properties of reactants [28, 51]. Thus, a rule can be interpreted as providing a coarsegrained definition of a class of reactions that arises from a particular interaction, with each reaction implied by a rule involving a common transformation and rate law. The granularity of a rule is adjustable.
Although the rulebased modeling framework described above is expressive and sufficiently rich to describe a wide array of molecular interactions involved in cell signaling, the graphs of this framework are not sufficiently expressive to provide a completely natural representation of the substructures of signaling proteins. As discussed in detail below, components of a protein can themselves contain components, and so on. Yet, in the framework described above, the components of a protein, regardless of their structural relationships, are represented in the same way, as the colored vertices of a graph, with a shared color indicating joint membership in the set of components of a particular type of molecule. In other words, if a component and a subcomponent of this component are both included in a model, the structural relationship between the component and subcomponent is lost. This representational limitation may not prevent a modeler from specifying a model with desired properties, but it may prevent others from easily connecting the formal elements of the model to the underlying biology and easily interpreting the model as intended.
Here, mainly to enable better annotation of rulebased models, we introduce the concept of using hierarchical graphs to represent molecules, such as proteins, for which there are structural relationships among component parts. We also present an algorithm and software, which we have called HNauty, for assigning canonical labels to hierarchical graphs. Canonical labeling enables one to determine if two graphs are the same or different simply by comparing their labels. This task, which is essentially equivalent to the solution of a graph isomorphism problem, is a routine part of network generation, the process of enumerating the reactions implied by a set of rules. Network generation, which is not always practical, is an essential ingredient in the generatefirst and onthefly approaches to simulation of a rulebased model [27, 28, 51]. Thus, this report not only lays groundwork for using hierarchical graphs to annotate rulebased models but also lays groundwork for making such graphs elements of executable models.
In the remainder of this section, we provide additional background on the graphical formalism underlying BNGL, on the hierarchical substructures of proteins, and on graph isomorphism and Nauty [55], a software tool for canonical labeling of colored graphs. We then provide examples of how hierarchical graphs can be used to represent proteins more naturally than the graphs of the BNGL formalism, and we present a simple extension of the method implemented in Nauty that allows for canonical labeling of hierarchical graphs. Finally, we present and evaluate our implementation of the extended canonical labeling tool, HNauty. The HNauty software is freely available; the source code is provided as Additional files 1 and 2. Its functionality can also be accessed from within BioNetGen [29].
Methods
Graphical formalism underlying the BioNetGen Language
The modelspecification language BNGL has evolved over time and has been described in detail [3, 27–29]. It is based on a graphical formalism described initially by Faeder et al. [28, 54] and then more formally and in greater detail by Blinov et al. [51]. The formalism includes various types of graphs, two of which are relevant for our purposes: the molecular entity graph and the chemical species graph. Let us recall the basic definition of a graph. A graph is a pair $(\mathcal{V},\mathcal{E})$ where $\mathcal{V}$ is a finite set (called the vertex set) and ℰ is a collection of pairs of vertices. A simple graph is a graph in which there is at most one edge between any two vertices. If this condition does not hold and the graph has multiple edges between at least one pair of vertices, then the graph is a multigraph. All graphs are assumed to be simple unless otherwise noted. If a graph is directed, then the edges are ordered pairs; otherwise they are unordered. A labeled graph is a graph $\mathcal{G}=(\mathcal{V},\mathcal{E})$ together with a set of labels, L and a map ${l}_{\mathcal{V}}:\mathcal{V}\to L$. It is also possible to label the edges via a map ${l}_{\mathcal{E}}:\mathcal{E}\to L$. In an attributed graph, some vertices, in addition to fixed labels, are associated with variable attributes, which are used in BNGL to represent internal states of components.
We are now ready to introduce the two types of graphs in the BNGL formalism that are of interest here. A molecular entity graph is a labeled graph together with a map that assigns to each vertex a list of possible attributes. A chemical species graph is derived from a molecular entity graph or a collection of connected molecular entity graphs such that all variable attributes take on specific values. Thus, molecular entity graphs model the types of molecules in a reaction network and chemical species graphs model specific chemical species, which are composed of molecules. These two types of graphs can be encoded in a machinereadable form according to the conventions of BNGL [29]. As should be apparent from the above definitions, in models specified using BNGL, all components (vertices) of proteins (graphs) are considered structurally equivalent (i.e., there are no subcomponents within components). Thus, the graphs of BNGL can potentially obscure the structural relationships among the component parts of a protein.
Two examples of proteins with hierarchical substructures
Figure 1A depicts the human lymphocyte cellspecific proteintyrosine kinase (Lck), which is a Srcfamily nonreceptor tyrosine kinase that plays an important role in T cell receptor (TCR) signaling [56, 57]. As can be seen, Lck is composed of one SH3 domain, one SH2 domain, and one PTK domain [58]. The tyrosine residues of Lck represented in Figure 1A (Y192, Y394 and Y505) have been shown to be phosphorylated during TCR signaling [59]. Phosphorylation of Y192 in the SH2 domain of Lck reduces the ability of the SH2 domain to bind its phosphotyrosinecontaining binding sites in other proteins [60]. Autophosphorylation of Y394, which is located in the activation loop of the PTK domain of Lck, increases the kinase activity of Lck [61]. Phosphorylation of Y505 allows an intramolecular interaction between pY505 and the SH2 domain of Lck, which downregulates Lck kinase activity through the resulting conformational change of the protein [62]. A depiction of Lck and its above mentioned components in the graphical formalism of BNGL would only show that there are three domains and three tyrosine residues in Lck. There would be no indication that Y192 is part of the SH2 domain or that Y394 is part of the PTK domain. Below, we will show that these relationships are clear from a hierarchical graph representation of Lck. The hierarchical graphs that will be formally introduced later include directed edges to indicate structural relationships. An edge directed from a component to a subcomponent can be interpreted to mean that the subcomponent is part of the component.
Figure 1B depicts the TCR complex, a multimeric protein expressed on the surface of T lymphocytes. The TCR complex has a subunit responsible for recognition of peptide antigens, which is composed of disulfidelinked α and β chains. It also has a number of subunits responsible for interacting with cytoplasmic signaling proteins. Two subunits are composed of the CD3γ, δ and ϵ chains, which each contain an ITAM and which form two disulfidelinked heterodimers: a γϵ heterodimer and a δ ϵ heterodimer. Finally, there is a homodimer of disulfidelinked ζ chains, which each contain three ITAMs. Each ITAM in the TCR complex contains two tyrosine residues, which are dynamically phosphorylated and dephosphorylated during TCR signaling. A tyrosine residue in the ITAM of CD3ϵ, Y188, is also part of a PRS that contains the motif PxxDY. It is important to recognize the structural overlap between the PRS and ITAM of CD3ϵ, because phosphorylation of Y188 inhibits interaction of the Y188containing PRS with SH3 domains and SH3 domain binding at the PRS inhibits phosphorylation of Y188 [63]. The structural relationships discussed above cannot be explicitly represented using the regular graphs of BNGL. Below, we will show that these relationships are clear from a hierarchical graph representation of the TCR complex.
Graph isomorphism
Graphs that are essentially the same are called isomorphic (the exact definition is given below). As described elsewhere [29], to generate a reaction network from a set of rules, BioNetGen [54] must determine, upon generation of a chemical species graph, if the graph has already been generated, i.e., if it is already part of the reaction network. If the graph does not already exist in the network, it is added to the reaction network. Specifically, upon generation of a chemical species graph, the newly generated graph must be checked for isomorphism with every other existing chemical species graph in the reaction network. To reduce the time necessary for this procedure, BioNetGen assigns to each chemical species graph a canonical label (which is the same for isomorphic graphs), or for computational efficiency, a pseudo canonical label, which is not guaranteed to be unique but often is in practice. Here, we will only be concerned with true canonical labels, but in the case of either a canonical or pseudo canonical labeling algorithm, the algorithm must be called only once for each chemical species graph representing a newly generated reaction product. An algorithm assigning canonical labels can thus be used to determine graph isomorphism efficiently, as string comparisons are much more efficient than graph comparisons. In practice, if there are a large number of graphs that need to be compared to one another, it is efficient to assign canonical labels using an algorithm such as Nauty [55, 64] to each graph and then to compare the graphs using their labels.
Although hierarchical graphs are currently only proposed here for annotation purposes, such graphs could in principle be incorporated into models as formal elements. To enable the incorporation of hierarchical graphs into executable models, we describe a generalization of the Nauty algorithm [55], which takes as input hierarchical graphs and assigns them canonical labels.
Results
Hierarchical Graphs for Annotating Rulebased Models
Definitions
We give exact definitions of hierarchical graphs before discussing how hierarchical graphs can be used to represent particular proteins with hierarchical substructures.
A hierarchical graph is a graph $\mathcal{G}=(\mathcal{V},\mathcal{E})$ together with an acyclic parent function $p:\mathcal{V}\to \mathcal{V}$. The parent function defines the hierarchy; the parent of a vertex is the next level up in the hierarchy. While the function p must be acyclic we do allow vertices to be their own parents; the assignment p(v) = v is permissible (and indeed such a relationship must hold for at least one vertex in the graph). It is common to represent the hierarchy as a directed tree (or forest). A labeled hierarchical graph is a hierarchical graph with a labeling of the vertices (and or edges) as above. Although many proteins do indeed have a hierarchical substructure, the above definition may be too strict in some cases. An example of such a case is provided by overlapping linear motifs (e.g., the overlapping PRS and ITAM in CD3ϵ), because amino acid residues in the region of overlap cannot be considered to have a unique parent in a hierarchical graph. We will call such hierarchies pseudohierarchies and define a pseudohierarchical graph to be a directed acyclic graph. Although individual nodes in pseudohierarchical graphs may not have a unique parent, the acyclicity of the hierarchy ensures there is still a "topdown" structure to the graph.
In models, we will want to essentially use both hierarchical (or pseudohierarchical) graphs and the conventional flat graphs of BNGL at the same time: the first type of graph to show the structural relationships between molecular components and the second type of graph to show bonds between molecular components. Thus, we will use graphs with two edge types, the first type will represent the (pseudo)hierarchy and will be directed, the second type will represent bonds and will be undirected.
The vertices of the graphs in BNGL are not only labeled but are also attributed. This means, for example, that a vertex that represents a site of phosphorylation on a protein may either have the attribute "phosphorylated" or the attribute "not phosphorylated." Technically, the label of a vertex stays the same, whereas an attribute of a vertex can change. This concept of variable attributes or internal states reflects an understanding that a protein is essentially the same molecule whether or not one of its amino acid residues is phosphorylated. Formally, each vertex is assigned a list of possible attributes and then each vertex is assigned an attribute from the corresponding list. In BNGL, labels cannot change during a simulation of a model; attributes can. Hierarchical graphs can be attributed in the same manner.
Hierarchical graph representation of Lck
In Figure 2B, a hierarchical graph representation of Lck that corresponds to Figure 2A is shown. The directed edges in Figure 2B represent containing or ownership relations. In Figure 2B, the PTK domain of Lck is explicitly represented, so that membership of Y394 in the PTK domain of Lck is clear. Similarly, one can see that Y192 is part of the SH2 domain of Lck. In this graph, possible internal states are indicated in boxes attached to the bottoms of component boxes, which is consistent with the conventions of Hu et al. [40].
A chemical species graph is a complete specification of a molecule or a molecular complex, including internal states. Figure 2C shows a chemical species graph for free Lck in which Y192 and Y394 are unphosphorylated (U) and Y505 is phosphorylated (P). The hierarchical graph representing this chemical species suggests to a reader that intramolecular binding between the SH2 domain and phosphorylated Y505 may affect the kinase activity of Lck, because the kinase domain is located between the SH2 domain and Y505 in the layout of the graph, which is consistent with ordering of components from the Nto the Cterminus of the polypeptide chain.
Both of the hierarchical representations shown in Figure 2 (panels B and C) capture the essential information of the protein sequence illustrated in Figure 1A: the internal relationships among the domains and residues of Lck. It differs from a nonhierarchical BNGLencoded representation of the molecule, such as LCK(SH3, SH2, PTK, Y192, Y394, Y505), which tells us nothing about how the tyrosine residues relate to the domains. In contrast, in the hierarchical representation, one can see that Y192 is inside the SH2 domain. One can also see that Y505 is a tyrosine residue located at the Cterminus of the kinase domain, although this feature derives from the layout of the graph.
Hierarchical graph representation of the TCR complex
Algorithm for canonically labeling hierarchical graphs
Another method which preserves the clarity of the original model is to simply keep the original edge types. To make the model executable, we can assign distinct values to each edge type from 0 to m, where m is the number of distinct edge types. Then the graph can be represented by the following sort of adjacency matrix. Set the ij^{ th } entry of the adjacency matrix to be ∑2^{ e } taken over edges with type e between vertices i and j. Note that a nondirectional edge e between vertices i and j will contribute to both the ij^{ th } entry and the ji^{ th } entry, whereas a directed edge e from i to j (i.e., a hierarchy edge) will only contribute to the ij^{ th } entry of the adjacency matrix. A graph can be reconstructed from such an adjacency matrix under the assumption that the graph does not contain multiple edges (more than one edge between a given pair of vertices) of the same edge type. For biological models, the restriction to such graphs is natural. Because our main motivation for using hierarchical graphs to model biochemical networks is to improve the clarity of models, we recommend this second method.
Adjacency matrix for the chemical species graph of Figure 2C.
Component  

Component  Lck  SH3  SH2  Y505  PTK  Y192  Y394 
Lck  0  1  1  1  1  0  0 
SH3  0  0  0  0  0  0  0 
SH2  0  0  0  2  0  1  0 
Y505  0  0  2  0  0  0  0 
PTK  0  0  0  0  0  0  1 
Y192  0  0  0  0  0  0  0 
Y394  0  0  0  0  0  0  0 
As can be seen from the first row of the matrix in Table 1, Lck contains SH3, SH2, Y505 and PTK components. Likewise, from the third and fourth rows, one can see that the SH2 component contains a Y192 subcomponent and the PTK component contains a Y394 subcomponent. From the pair of "2" entries, one can see that there is a bond between the SH2 and Y505 components.
An important capability of BioNetGen is the ability to distinguish between different graphs and to recognize isomorphic graphs [51]. We describe a slight generalization of the Nauty algorithm which can canonically label graphs with several edge types. This algorithm, HNauty, has been incorporated into BioNetGen [29]. Although our algorithm is only slightly different from the one described by McKay [55], we provide a brief description of the whole algorithm for clarity.
Although the representation of graphs within computing systems can vary, it is useful to think of a graph as being represented by an adjacency matrix for the graph. However, the same graph can have several different adjacency matrices associated with it; different permutations (i.e., orderings) of the vertices may correspond to different adjacency matrices. If a graph is represented by an adjacency matrix, the problem of finding a canonical label for a graph is thus nothing more than picking a canonical adjacency matrix for each graph, that is a canonical permutation of the vertices. This can be done by brute force; there are n! permutations of the vertices of a graph with n vertices. Each permutation corresponds to a possibly unique adjacency matrix. The adjacency matrices can be linearly ordered by considering each matrix as a binary string of length n^{2}. The first (smallest) such string can then be chosen as the canonical label (matrix representation) for the given graph. The problem with this method is that it involves producing and sorting n! strings.
Comparing Graphs: Graph Isomorphism and Graph Automorphism
Let us exam the graphs in Figure 5 more carefully. The permutation, π_{1}, generating G_{2} from G_{1} is defined as follows: π_{1}(v_{1}) = v_{1}, π_{1}(v_{2}) = v_{2}, π_{1}(v_{3}) = v_{4} and π_{1}(v_{4}) = v_{3}. The permutation, π_{2}, generating G_{3} from G_{1} is defined as follows: π_{2}(v_{1}) = v_{1}, π_{2}(v_{2}) = v_{4}, π_{2}(v_{3}) = v_{3} and π_{2}(v_{4}) = v_{2}. Note that π_{2} satisfies the definition of an automorphism of the graph G_{1} whereas π_{1} does not. The set of those permutations of the vertices that are automorphisms of a graph G is called the automorphism group of the graph G. The size of the automorphism group of a graph is a measure of the amount of symmetry in the graph. As will become clear later, it is often more difficult to find canonical labels for graphs that are highly symmetric (i.e., graphs that have large automorphism groups) than for graphs with small automorphism groups.
Determining graph isomorphism
A common element of methods for both assigning canonical labels and determining graph isomorphism is the individualization and refinement procedure [55, 65]. The Nauty algorithm also uses this procedure which is outlined below. The procedure involves partitions; a partition P of a set S, is a collection of nonempty pairwise disjoint subsets {S_{ i }} of S whose union is S. The sets S_{ i } are referred to as the cells of the partition. An ordered partition is formed by ordering the cells of a partition. In other words, the ordered ktuple (S_{1}, S_{2},..., S_{ k }) is an ordered partition of S if the sets S_{ i } form a partition of S. Unless otherwise specified, in what follows, we will always use "partition" to refer to an ordered partition. The length of a partition is the number of cells in the partition. A partition is discrete if its length is equal to the size of the set S and trivial if it has only a single cell. A discrete partition of the vertex set of a graph is an ordering of the vertices and thus equivalent to a permutation of the vertex set. As the canonical labeling problem is equivalent to finding a canonical permutation of the vertices of a graph, it is also equivalent to finding a canonical discrete partition of the vertex set.
where d(x, S_{ j }) is the number of edges connecting the vertex x to elements of the cell S_{ j } . Similarly, d(y, S_{ j }) is the number of edges connecting the vertex y to elements of the cell S_{ j }. Thus, if every vertex in a graph has fixed degree k, then the trivial partition of the vertex set P = ($\mathcal{V}$) is equitable. Note also that for any graph, every discrete partition is equitable.
There is a natural partial order on the collection of partitions of a given set S. Given two partitions P and Q of the same set, we say P is finer than Q, Q is coarser than P, and P is a refinement of Q (P ≤ Q) if each P_{ i } is a subset of some Q_{ j }. In addition, for ordered partitions, we require P_{1} ⊆ Q_{1}, and ∀i : P_{ i } ⊆ Q_{ j } ⇒ P_{ i }+1 ⊆ Q_{ k } where k is either j or j +1. For example, the partition ({1, 5}, {2, 3}, {4}) is a refinement of the partition ({1, 5}, {2, 3, 4}).
As every discrete partition of a vertex set is equitable, it can be shown that every partition P of a vertex set has a unique coarsest refinement that is equitable [55]. This fact underpins the individualization and refinement approach. We refer to the unique coarsest refinements as equitable refinements. Consider the equitable refinements of the trivial partitions of the vertex sets of two graphs, written as P = (P_{1}, P_{2},..., P_{ j }) and Q = (Q_{1}, Q_{2},..., Q_{ k }). If the graphs are isomorphic, these partitions will have the same shape, meaning that for each i, P_{ i } = Q_{ i }. (S refers to the size of the set S.)
In general, equitable partitions are insufficient to distinguish between nonisomorphic graphs and therefore insufficient to determine canonical labels for graphs. They must be used together with individualization, which can be described as follows. Suppose the partition P is not discrete; then let C be the first cell of P with more than one element. Pick an element x in C and consider the partition P' formed by replacing the cell C with the two cells C\{x} and {x}. P' is a refinement of P, but it is not necessarily equitable. Thus, it is necessary to find the equitable refinement of P'. Continuing in this manner, it is possible to individualize and find further equitable refinements until a discrete partition is reached. As the individualized vertices were chosen at random, the procedure must be repeated for each possible choice of vertices. In this way, several discrete partitions are produced; this is the individualization and refinement procedure used in many canonical labeling algorithms including Nauty. To finish, the algorithm must select a canonical discrete partition from among those produced by the individualization and refinement procedure.
If a graph has a small automorphism group then the individualization and refinement procedure will produce only a few discrete partitions; in this case it will be relatively easy to select a canonical label. Conversely, if the automorphism group is large, the procedure will produce many discrete partitions, and it will take more effort to select a canonical label. For example, if a graph is completely symmetric then each permutation of the vertices gives an automorphism of the graph. In this case, every partition of the graph is equitable and the individualization and refinement procedure will produce each of the n! possible discrete partitions of the vertex set. Recall the graphs G_{1} and G_{2} considered above. The automorphism group of G_{2} has size 2 whereas the automorphism group of G1 has size 6. Thus, the individualization and refinement procedure produces the following two discrete partitions for G_{2}: ({v_{1}}, {v_{3}}, {v_{2}}, {v_{4}}, {v_{5}}) and ({v_{3}}, {v_{1}}, {v_{2}}, {v_{5}}, {v_{4}}). On the other hand, the six discrete partitions produced for G_{1} correspond to those permutations of the vertices where both v_{2} and v_{4} come before the three other vertices v_{1}, v_{3}, and v_{5}.
At this point it is common to use a bruteforce method for finding a canonical partition from among those generated by the individualization and refinement procedure. Each generated partition P of the vertices corresponds to a permutation π of the vertices. Applying this permutation to the vertices of the graph, we get a new adjacency matrix A for the graph. If there are n vertices in the graph, then A is an n × n array of 0's and 1's. In fact, A can be considered to be a binary string of length n^{2}. Comparing these strings as binary numbers, the smallest is selected and the corresponding partition is ordained the canonical label.
In general, the individualization and refinement procedure produces significantly less than n! partitions to be compared as binary strings. This efficiency is achieved because most graphs have small automorphism groups [66]. However, the method fails to significantly reduce the number of partitions that must be compared if the graph has a large automorphism group. For instance, a graph with n vertices containing every possible edge connecting these vertices has a full automorphism group, meaning that every permutation of the vertices is an automorphism. For this graph, and similarly for a graph containing no edges, the individualization and refinement procedure will completely fail to reduce the number of partitions to be compared; every discrete ordered partition will be generated by the procedure.
The Nauty algorithm
For highly symmetric graphs, the Nauty algorithm [55] implements a fairly effective strategy to speed up the time taken to find a canonical label. It makes use of the automorphisms of a graph to further reduce the number of partitions produced by the individualization and refinement procedure. We will now give a brief overview of the search tree used in Nauty to explain how Nauty takes advantage of knowledge of automorphisms of a graph.
Nauty takes as input a colored (labeled) graph; the coloring is taken to define a starting partition of the vertices. Nauty then builds a rooted search tree by computing successive equitable refinements of the initial partition given by the coloring. Elements of the search tree are called nodes so as not to confuse them with the vertices of the graph. The root of the search tree is the equitable refinement of the initial (given) coloring. Branches are formed by individualizing vertices and finding successive equitable refinements after each individualization step. Each movement down the search tree corresponds to individualizing an appropriate vertex and finding the equitable refinement of the resulting partition. Thus, each node at distance k from the root of the search tree can be represented by an ordered ktuple of vertices, with the ordering corresponding to the order of vertex individualization. The leaves of the search tree (also called terminal nodes) correspond to discrete partitions. Thus, each terminal node has a natural association with a permutation of the vertices of the graph.
The key idea is that automorphisms of the graph correspond to similar leaves in the search tree. To be more precise, we say that two permutations, π_{1} and π_{2}, of the vertices of the graph are equivalent if there is an automorphism of the graph, γ such that π_{1} = π_{2} * γ (that is, π_{1} is equal to the composition of the two permutations π_{2} and γ.) Then as γ is a permutation of the vertices, it can also be considered a permutation of the nodes of the search tree. (This is because each terminal node corresponds to an ordered tuple of vertices.) It can be shown that if ν is a node of the search tree, then ν^{γ} (the permutation of the ktuple ν by γ) will be as well. In fact, much more is true: the two sets of leaves of the search tree derived from the two nodes ν and ν^{γ} , respectively, will be equivalent to each other. In other words, the two sets of respective permutations will be equivalent [55]. Thus, if γ is an automorphism of the graph, it is enough to produce all the terminal nodes stemming from a given node ν in the search tree, and we can ignore the terminal nodes stemming from ν^{γ}. In this way, knowledge of automorphisms can be used to eliminate the need to examine (large) parts of the search tree.
Nauty discovers automorphisms in the following way. The algorithm is based on depth first search; it immediately starts generating terminal nodes. Upon producing a terminal node, Nauty applies the corresponding permutation to the original graph and then calculates the resulting adjacency matrix. Two adjacency matrices produced in this way are equal if and only if the corresponding two permutations, π_{1} and π_{2}, are equivalent. In this case, there exists an automorphism γ of the graph such that π_{1} = π_{2} * γ. The Nauty algorithm then calculates γ by evaluating ${\pi}_{2}^{1}*{\pi}_{1}$. As such automorphisms are discovered, Nauty can prune the size of the search tree as detailed above.
Nauty also uses an indicator function to further prune the search tree. An indicator function is a map defined on the nodes of the search tree that is invariant under automorphisms of the graph. This function maps the nodes into a linearly ordered set (a set in which the elements have a linear ordering, for example the real numbers.) Then Nauty skips over nodes of the search tree where the indicator function is not minimal. As the indicator function is invariant under automorphisms of the graph, a canonical label will be found among those terminal nodes of minimal indicator function value.
HNauty
Here we describe HNauty and explain how HNauty differs from McKay's description of Nauty [55]. One difference is that, as HNauty allows for several different edge types, the adjacency matrices associated with the graphs in HNauty may contain not only 0's and 1's for entries but can have entries of the form ∑2^{ i } where i is taken over those edges of type i between the two given vertices. For a graph with two edge types (e.g., hierarchy and bond edges), the entries in the adjacency matrix can be 0, 1, 2^{21} = 2^{1} = 2 or 1+2 = 3. A value of "3" should be interpreted to mean that there is both a hierarchy edge and a bond edge between two vertices.
where d(x, V_{ i }) is the number of edges labeled e between x and S_{ i }. In other words, the partition is equitable with respect to the graph restricted to any single edge type. It can be proved that, given a partition P, there exists a unique coarsest generalized equitable refinement of P. To see this, note that it is enough to prove it for unordered partitions. (All of the partitions in Nauty and HNauty are ordered, and the orderings are canonical: sets with higher degrees come before sets with lower degrees.) Now, suppose that Q_{1} and Q_{2} are both generalized equitable refinements of P. If Q_{1} and Q_{2} are different as unordered partitions, then clearly their join, Q (in the lattice of partitions) is also generalized and equitable. In fact, a basic property of lattices implies that Q is also a refinement of P. As Q is coarser than both Q_{1} and Q_{2}, it follows that P has a unique coarsest generalized equitable refinement. This property is the only property of generalized equitable partitions that is necessary to use them in place of equitable partitions.
Implementation
Except for using generalized equitable partitions in place of equitable partitions, our implementation follows the description given by McKay [55]. Apparently, the actual Nauty program [64] contains some efficiencies not described in [55]. Thus, our algorithm is unlikely to be as finely tuned as Nauty. For an indicator function, we use the shape of the partition together with the shapes of the parent nodes in the search tree. By shape we mean the sizes of the individual cells of the partition. The partition ({0, 1}, {6}, {5}, {2, 3, 4, 7}) has shape (2, 1, 0, 1) as it has two cells of size 1, one cell of size 2, no cells of size 3 and one cell of size 4. These tuples are lexicographically ordered. This indicator function is invariant under automorphisms of the graph as required. Indeed it is invariant under any permutation of the vertices.
We implemented our algorithm in both Perl and Python. The Perl version of HNauty is available as Additional file 1. The Python version of HNauty is available as Additional file 2. HNauty is also available at the BioNetGen website [67]. The Perl version has been incorporated into BioNetGen [29]. HNauty is turned off by default in BioNetGen. It can be turned on with the command "setOption(SpeciesLabel, HNauty);" at the beginning of a BioNetGen input file. The default for BioNetGen is to calculate pseudocanonical labels that do not distinguish all isomorphic graphs but are much faster to generate than HNauty. Then any two graphs which share pseudocanonical labels are checked for isomorphism using Ullmann's algorithm [68]. The generation of pseudocanonical labels followed by applying Ullmann's algorithm to graphs with the same label always produces correct results, though it can be much slower than HNauty if a chemical species graph is composed of many isomorphic subgraphs. The HNauty code can be run as standalone code separate from BioNetGen. The Python version of HNauty uses the graph structures defined in the freely available package NetworkX [69]. The Perl version of HNauty takes as input the graph adjacency matrix together with an initial partition of the vertices of a graph. The adjacency matrix should be in the form of a dictionary of dictionaries. The keys of the first dictionary are the vertices of a graph. Each vertex i points to a second dictionary whose keys are the neighbors of vertex i in the graph. In this second dictionary, a vertex j points to an array containing the edge types between vertices i and j. (For graphs without multiple edges, each such array will only contain one edge type.) The initial partition of the vertices should be given in the form of an array of arrays, each of the smaller arrays being a set in the partition. HNauty returns as output a permutation of the vertices of the input graph. Permuting the input graph under this permutation gives the canonical label of the graph (i.e., the resulting adjacency matrix is the canonical label).
Testing
Both the Python and Perl versions of HNauty were extensively checked using a database of isomorphic graphs [70]. The Perl version was further checked against randomly generated graphs with two types of edge: directed and undirected. These graphs were generated using the ErdősRényi model for random graphs; the edges were chosen independently with uniform probability. Edges were selected to be undirected with probability 0.1 and directed with probability 0.05. With probability 0.85 an edge was not in the graph. One thousand graphs, each on two hundred nodes, were produced in this way. Each was given as input to HNauty and then a random permutation of the vertices was applied to each graph; the result was also given as input to HNauty. A test was successful if the two isomorphic inputs resulted in the same canonical label. All of the tests were successful.
Discussion
In the section above, we discussed the significance of our results as the results were presented. Thus, this section will be brief. Hierarchical graphs can be powerful visual aids in understanding complex molecular structures. For rulebased models of cell signaling systems, hierarchical graphs provide more natural representations of proteins than the regular flat graphs of BNGL or Kappa and thus promote clarity in building and annotating models. Regular flat graphs can obscure the structural properties of molecules and molecular complexes. As shown above, hierarchical graphs can be used in a formal manner to model cell signaling systems. In addition, they can be incorporated into executable models in place of regular graphs. As an example, we have developed a version of the popular Nauty code which can take as input hierarchical graphs (and indeed any graphs with multiple edge types). This is important because, as noted above, determining graph isomorphism can take a significant amount of computation time in network generation. As detailed above, HNauty differs only slightly from the main outline of Nauty given by McKay [55]. Indeed, the formalism distinguishing graphs and hierarchical graphs (and graphs with two or more edge types) is also slight. Thus, we propose that the use of hierarchical graphs may, at little cost, allow for greater clarity of rulebased models for biochemical systems.
Conclusions
The graphs and algorithm introduced here lay the groundwork for rulebased models that are easier to understand, because molecules with complicated substructures can be more naturally represented.
Abbreviations
 BNGL:

BioNetGen language
 PRS:

prolinerich sequence
 PTK:

protein tyrosine kinase.
Declarations
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants GM076570, GM085273 and US Department of Energy (DOE) contract DEAC5206NA25396. NWL thanks the Center for Nonlinear Studies for funding that made visits to Los Alamos possible. The authors thank Lily A. Chylek, James R. Faeder (JRF) and Pieter Swart for helpful discussions. We also thank JRF for incorporating HNauty into BioNetGen.
Authors’ Affiliations
References
 Breitling R, Hoeller D: Current challenges in quantitative modeling of epidermal growth factor signaling. FEBS Lett 2005, 579: 6289–6294. 10.1016/j.febslet.2005.10.034View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Kholodenko BN: Cellsignalling dynamics in time and space. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 2006, 7: 165–176. 10.1038/nrm1838PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Hlavacek WS, Faeder JR, Blinov ML, Posner RG, Hucka M, Fontana W: Rules for modeling signaltransduction systems. Sci STKE 2006, 2006: re6. 10.1126/stke.3442006re6PubMedGoogle Scholar
 Endy D, Brent R: Modelling cellular behaviour. Nature 2001, 437: 391–395. 10.1038/35053181View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Hlavacek WS, Faeder JR, Blinov ML, Perelson AS, Goldstein B: The complexity of complexes in signal transduction. Biotechnol Bioeng 2003, 84: 783–794. 10.1002/bit.10842View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Mayer BJ, Blinov ML, Loew LM: Molecular machines or pleiomorphic ensembles: signaling complexes revisited. J Biol 2009, 8: 81. 10.1186/jbiol185PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Yang XJ: Multisite protein modification and intramolecular signaling. Oncogene 2005, 24: 1653–1662. 10.1038/sj.onc.1208173View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Salazar C, Höfer T: Multisite protein phosphorylationfrom molecular mechanisms to kinetic models. FEBS J 2009, 276: 3177–3198. 10.1111/j.17424658.2009.07027.xView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Thomson M, Gunawardena J: Unlimited multistability in multisite phosphorylation systems. Nature 2009, 460: 274–277. 10.1038/nature08102PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Nag A, Monine MI, Faeder JR, Goldstein B: Aggregation of membrane proteins by cytosolic crosslinkers: theory and simulation of the LATGrb2SOS1 system. Biophys J 2009, 96: 2604–2623. 10.1016/j.bpj.2009.01.019PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Sriram SM, Banerjee R, Kane RS, Kwon YT: Multivalencyassisted control of intracellular signaling pathways: application for ubiquitindependent Nend rule pathway. Chem Biol 2009, 16: 121–131. 10.1016/j.chembiol.2009.01.012PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Pawson T, Nash P: Assembly of cell regulatory systems through protein interaction domains. Science 2003, 300: 445–452. 10.1126/science.1083653View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Pawson T, Gish GD: SH2 and SH3 domains: from structure to function. Cell 1992, 71: 359–362. 10.1016/00928674(92)905046View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Kaneko T, Li L, Li SS: The SH3 domaina family of versatile peptideand proteinrecognition module. Front Biosci 2008, 13: 4938–4952. 10.2741/3053View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Filippakopoulos P, Müller S, Knapp S: SH2 domains: modulators of nonreceptor tyrosine kinase activity. Curr Opin Struct Biol 2009, 19: 643–649. 10.1016/j.sbi.2009.10.001PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Hunter T, Cooper JA: Proteintyrosine kinases. Annu Rev Biochem 1985, 54: 897–930. 10.1146/annurev.bi.54.070185.004341View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Hunter T: Tyrosine phosphorylation: thirty years and counting. Curr Opin Cell Biol 2009, 21: 140–146. 10.1016/j.ceb.2009.01.028PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Gould CM, Diella F, Via A, Puntervoll P, Gem¨und C, ChabanisDavidson S, Michael S, Sayadi A, Bryne JC, Chica C, Seiler M, Davey NE, Haslam N, Weatheritt RJ, Budd A, Hughes T, Pas J, Rychlewski L, Travé G, Aasland R, HelmerCitterich M, Linding R, Gibson TJ: ELM: the status of the 2010 eukaryotic linear motif resource. Nucleic Acids Res 2010, (38 Database):D167D180. 10.1093/nar/gkp1016
 Cambier JC: Antigen and Fc receptor signaling. The awesome power of the immunoreceptor tyrosinebased activation motif (ITAM). J Immunol 1995, 155: 3281–3285.PubMedGoogle Scholar
 Daëron M, Jaeger S, Du Pasquier L, Vivier E: Immunoreceptor tyrosinebased inhibition motifs: a quest in the past and future. Immunol Rev 2008, 224: 11–43. 10.1111/j.1600065X.2008.00666.xView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Walsh CT, GarneauTsodikova S, Gatto GJ: Protein posttranslational modifications: the chemistry of proteome diversifications. Angew Chem Int Ed Engl 2005, 44: 7342–7372. 10.1002/anie.200501023View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Hunter T: Signaling2000 and beyond. Cell 2000, 100: 113–127. 10.1016/S00928674(00)816888View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Manning G, Whyte DB, Martinez R, Hunter T, Sudarsanam S: The protein kinase complement of the human genome. Science 2002, 298: 1912–1934. 10.1126/science.1075762View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Hershko A, Ciechanover A: The ubiquitin system. Annu Rev Biochem 1998, 67: 425–479. 10.1146/annurev.biochem.67.1.425View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Deshaies RJ, Joazeiro CA: RING domain E3 ubiquitin ligases. Annu Rev Biochem 2009, 78: 399–434. 10.1146/annurev.biochem.78.101807.093809View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Danos V, Feret J, Fontana W, Harmer R, Krivine J: Rulebased modelling of cellular signalling. Lect Notes Comput Sci 2007, 4703: 17–41. full_textView ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Blinov ML, Faeder JR, Goldstein B, Hlavacek WS: BioNetGen: software for rulebased modeling of signal transduction based on the interactions of molecular domains. Bioinformatics 2004, 20: 3289–3291. 10.1093/bioinformatics/bth378View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Faeder JR, Blinov ML, Goldstein B, Hlavacek WS: Rulebased modeling of biochemical networks. Complexity 2005, 10: 22–41. 10.1002/cplx.20074View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Faeder JR, Blinov ML, Hlavacek WS: Rulebased modeling of biochemical systems with BioNetGen. Methods Mol Biol 2009, 500: 1–55. full_textView ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Danos V, Feret J, Fontana W, Krivine J: Scalable simulation of cellular signaling networks. Lect Notes Comput Sci 2007, 4807: 139–157. full_textView ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Yang J, Monine MI, Faeder JR, Hlavacek WS: Kinetic Monte Carlo method for rulebased modeling of biochemical networks. Phys Rev E 2008, 78: 031910. 10.1103/PhysRevE.78.031910View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Colvin J, Monine MI, Faeder JR, Hlavacek WS, Von Hoff DD, Posner RG: Simulation of largescale rulebased models. Bioinformatics 2009, 25: 910–917. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btp066PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Lok L, Brent R: Automatic generation of cellular reaction networks with Moleculizer 1.0. Nat Biotechnol 2005, 23: 131–136. 10.1038/nbt1054View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 MeierSchellersheim M, Xu X, Angermann B, Kunkel EJ, Jin T, Germain RN: Key role of local regulation in chemosensing revealed by a new molecular interactionbased modeling method. PLoS Comput Biol 2006, 2: e82. 10.1371/journal.pcbi.0020082PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Fisher J, Henzinger TA: Executable cell biology. Nat Biotechnol 2007, 25: 1239–1249. 10.1038/nbt1356View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Borisov NM, Chistopolsky AS, Faeder JR, Kholodenko BN: Domainoriented reduction of rulebased network models. IET Syst Biol 2008, 2: 342–351. 10.1049/ietsyb:20070081PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Koschorreck M, Gilles ED: ALC: automated reduction of rulebased models. BMC Syst Biol 2008, 2: 91. 10.1186/17520509243PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Mallavarapu A, Thomson M, Ullian B, Gunawardena J: Programming with models: modularity and abstraction provide powerful capabilities for systems biology. J R Soc Interface 2009, 6: 257–270. 10.1098/rsif.2008.0205PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Lis M, Artyomov MN, Devadas S, Chakraborty AK: Efficient stochastic simulation of reactiondiffusion processes via direct compilation. Bioinformatics 2009, 25: 2289–2291. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btp387PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Hu B, Fricke GM, Faeder JR, Posner RG, Hlavacek WS: GetBonNie for building, analyzing and sharing rulebased models. Bioinformatics 2009, 25: 1457–1460. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btp173PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Feret J, Danos V, Krivine J, Harmer R, Fontana W: Internal coarsegraining of molecular systems. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2009, 106: 6453–6458. 10.1073/pnas.0809908106PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Andrews SS, Addy NJ, Brent R, Arkin AP: Detailed simulations of cell biology with Smoldyn 2.1. PLoS Comput Biol 2010, 6: e1000705. 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000705PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Tolle DP, Le Novère N: Meredys , a multicompartment reactiondiffusion simulator using multistate realistic molecular complexes. BMC Syst Biol 2010, 4: 24. 10.1186/17520509424PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Gruenert G, Ibrahim B, Lenser T, Lohel M, Hinze T, Dittrich P: Rulebased spatial modeling with diffusing geometrically constrained molecules. Bioinformatics 2010, 11: 303.Google Scholar
 Colvinr J, Monine MI, Gutenkunst RN, Hlavacek WS, Von Hoff DD, Psner RG: RuleMonkey: software for stochastic simulation of rulebased models. Bioinformatics 2010, 11: 404.Google Scholar
 Faeder JR, Blinov ML, Goldstein B, Hlavacek WS: Combinatorial complexity and dynamical restriction of network flows in signal transduction. Syst Biol 2005, 2: 5–15. 10.1049/sb:20045031View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Blinov ML, Faeder JR, Goldstein B, Hlavacek WS: A network model of early events in epidermal growth factor receptor signaling that accounts for combinatorial complexity. BioSystems 2006, 83: 136–151. 10.1016/j.biosystems.2005.06.014View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Barua D, Faeder JR, Haugh JM: Structurebased kinetic models of modular signaling protein function: focus on Shp2. Biophys J 2007, 92: 2290–2300. 10.1529/biophysj.106.093484PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Barua D, Faeder JR, Haugh JM: Computational models of tandem Src homology 2 domain interactions and application to phosphoinositide 3kinase. J Biol Chem 2008, 283: 7338–7345. 10.1074/jbc.M708359200PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Barua D, Faeder JR, Haugh JM: A bipolar clamp mechanism for activation of Jakfamily protein tyrosine kinases. PLoS Comput Biol 2009, 5: e1000364. 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000364PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Blinov ML, Yang J, Faeder JR, Hlavacek WS: Graph theory for rulebased modeling of biochemical networks. Lect Notes Comput Sci 2006, 4230: 89–106. full_textView ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Danos V, Laneve C: Formal molecular biology. Theoretical Computer Science 2004, 325: 69–110. 10.1016/j.tcs.2004.03.065View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Danos V, Feret J, Fontana W, Krivine J: Abstract interpretation of cellular signalling networks. Lect Notes Comput Sci 2008, 4905: 83–97. full_textView ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Faeder JR, Blinov ML, Hlavacek WS: Graphical rulebased representation of signaltransduction networks. In Proceedings of the 2005 ACM Symposium on Applied Computing: 13–17 March 2005; Santa Fe, NM. Edited by: Liebrock LM. ACM Press; 2005:133–140. full_textView ArticleGoogle Scholar
 McKay BD: Practical graph isomorphism. Congressus Numerantium 1981, 30: 45–87.Google Scholar
 Straus DB, Weiss A: Genetic evidence for the involvement of the lck tyrosine kinase in signal transduction through the T cell antigen receptor. Cell 1992, 70: 585–593. 10.1016/00928674(92)90428FView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Salmond RJ, Filby A, Qureshi I, Caserta S, Zamoyska R: Tcell receptor proximal signaling via the Srcfamily kinases, Lck and Fyn, influences Tcell activation, differentiation, and tolerance. Immunol Rev 2009, 228: 9–22. 10.1111/j.1600065X.2008.00745.xView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Sefton BM: The lck tyrosine protein kinase. Oncogene 1991, 6: 683–686.PubMedGoogle Scholar
 Oetken C, Willebrand MV, MarieCardine A, PessaMorikawa T, Ståhls A, Fisher S, Mustelin T: Induction of hyperphosphorylation and activation of the p56^{lck}protein tyrosine kinase by phenylarsine oxide, a phosphotyrosine phosphatase inhibitor. Mol Immunol 1994, 31: 1295–1302. 10.1016/01615890(94)900477View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Couture C, Songyang Z, Jascur T, Williams S, Tailor P, Cantley LC, Mustelin T: Regulation of the Lck SH2 domain by tyrosine phosphorylation. J Biol Chem 1996, 271: 24880–24884. 10.1074/jbc.271.40.24880View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Veillette A, Fournel M: The CD4 associated tyrosine protein kinase p56^{lck}is positively regulated through its site of autophosphorylation. Oncogene 1990, 5: 1455–1462.PubMedGoogle Scholar
 Veillette A, Caron L, Fournel M, Pawson T: Regulation of the enzymatic function of the lymphocytespecific tyrosine protein kinase p56^{lck}by the noncatalytic SH2 and SH3 domains. Oncogene 1992, 7: 971–980.PubMedGoogle Scholar
 Kesti T, Ruppelt A, Wang JH, Liss M, Wagner R, Tasken K, Saksela K: Reciprocal regulation of SH3 and SH2 domain binding via tyrosine phosphorylation of a common site in CD3ϵ. J Immunol 2007, 179: 878–885.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Nauty[http://cs.anu.edu.au/people/bdm/nauty/]
 Babai L, Luks EM: Canonical labeling of graphs. Proc of the 15th ACM Symp on the Theory of Computing 1983, 15: 171–183.Google Scholar
 Wright EM: Asymmetric and symmetric graphs. Glasgow Math J 1974, 15: 69–73. 10.1017/S0017089500002159View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 BioNetGen[http://www.bionetgen.org/]
 Ullmann JR: An algorithm for subgraph isomorphism. J ACM 1976, 23: 31–42. 10.1145/321921.321925View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 NetworkX[http://networkx.lanl.gov]
 The graph database[http://amalfi.dis.unina.it/graph/doc/graphdb.html]
Copyright
This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.