Evolving Gene Regulatory Networks with Mobile DNA Mechanisms
Larry Bull and Andrew Adamatzky


Abstract— This paper uses a recently presented abstract,
tuneable Boolean regulatory network model extended to
consider aspects of mobile DNA, such as transposons. The
significant role of mobile DNA in the evolution of natural
systems is becoming increasingly clear. This paper shows how
dynamically controlling network node connectivity and
function via transposon-inspired mechanisms can be selected
for in computational intelligence tasks to give improved
performance. The designs of dynamical networks intended for
implementation within the slime mould Physarum
polycephalum and for the distributed control of a smart surface
are considered.

I. INTRODUCTION

A

number of mobile DNA mechanisms exist through
which changes in genomic structure can occur in ways
other than copy errors, particularly via transposable
elements (e.g., see [Craig et al., 2002] for an overview).
Mobile genetic elements such as transposons are DNA
sequences that may be either copied or removed and then
inserted at a new position in the genome [McClintock,
1987]: retrotransposons use an intermediary RNA copy of
themselves for “copying and pasting”, whereas DNA
transposons rely upon specific proteins for their “cutting and
pasting” into new sites, respectively. The targeting of a new
position ranges from the very specific, typically by
exploiting sequence recognition proteins, to more or less
arbitrary movement. These processes, insertion in particular,
are often reliant upon proteins produced elsewhere within
the genome. Transposons are found widely in both
prokaryotes and eukaryotes, and they have been associated
with many significant evolutionary innovations (e.g., see
[Kazazian, 2004] for an overview).
Transposable elements can therefore change the
behaviour of a given cell: insertion into a gene will typically
disrupt its coding sequence, i.e., it will be mutated, insertion
next to a gene may affect its subsequent regulation, e.g., the
mobile element’s regulatory sequence may take control of
the gene, the act of excision can leave behind DNA
fragments which cause a change in the sequence at that
location, coding segments between transposons can be
moved with them, etc. The effects of such movement can be
beneficial or detrimental to a cell. Perhaps the most
significant aspect of transposons is that these effects occur
during the organism/cell’s lifetime. That is, such structural
Manuscript received XXXXXX, 2013.
Larry Bull is with the Department of Computer Science & Creative
Technologies, University of the West of England, Bristol, UK (e-mail:
larry.bull@uwe.ac.uk).
Andrew Adamatzky is with the Department of Computer Science &
Creative Technologies, University of the West of England, Bristol, UK (email: andrew.adamatzky@uwe.ac.uk).

changes are made to a genome based upon the actions of its
own regulatory processes in response to its internal and
external environment. Moreover, such changes can be
inherited. Thus, as has recently been highlighted [Shapiro,
2011], genomes should be viewed as read-write systems
with embedded change/search heuristics.
This paper extends initial studies which began
consideration of the dynamic role of mobile DNA within
regulatory network representations [Bull, 2012a; 2013]. In
particular, an aspect of transposable elements within a
genetic regulatory network (GRN) was explored using an
extension of a well-known, simple GRN formalism –
random Boolean networks (RBN) [Kauffman, 1969]. The
RBN model was extended to include a form of structural
dynamism to capture some aspects of mobile DNA during
the cell life-cycle: gene connectivity could be varied based
upon the current network/environment state. It was shown
that such dynamism can be selected for in abstract nonstationary [Bull, 2012a] and multicellular [Bull, 2013]
environments.
There is growing interest in the use of GRN
representations in artificial systems. RBN have been evolved
to solve well-known logic tasks (e.g., [Van den Broeck &
Kawai, 1990]), to model micro-array data (e.g., [Tan & Tay,
2006]), for robot maze tasks (e.g., [Preen & Bull, 2009]),
etc. (see [Bull, 2012b] for an overview of evolving GRN).
We are interested in the use of computational intelligence
techniques as an approach to design/program unconventional
computing substrates and architectures. Previous work has
considered in vitro neuronal networks (e.g., [Bull, et al.,
2008]), non-linear chemical media (e.g., [Toth et al., 2008]),
memristors (e.g., [Howard et al., 2013]), cellular automata
(e.g., [Sapin et al., 2009]), amongst others. This paper
presents initial results for the design of dynamical circuits
within slime mould, where each Boolean logic gate of the
network is to be implemented in the living substrate, and for
the design of a dynamical controller for each cell of a “smart
surface” of distributed actuators and sensors.
II. RANDOM BOOLEAN NETWORKS
Within the traditional form of RBN, a network of R nodes,
each with B directed connections from other nodes in the
network, all update synchronously based upon the current
state of those B nodes. Hence those B nodes are seen to have
a regulatory effect upon the given node, specified by the
given Boolean function attributed to it. Nodes can also be
self-connected. Since they have a finite number of possible
states and they are deterministic, such networks eventually
fall into an attractor. It is well-established that the value of B
affects the emergent behaviour of RBN wherein attractors
typically contain an increasing number of states with

increasing B. Three phases of behaviour were originally
suggested by Kauffman through observation of the typical
dynamics: ordered when B=1, with attractors consisting of
one or a few states; chaotic when B>3, with a very large
number of states per attractor; and, a critical regime around
1<B<4, where similar states lie on trajectories that tend to
neither diverge nor converge (see [Kauffman, 1993] for
discussions of this critical regime, e.g., with respect to
perturbations). Subsequent formal analysis using an
annealed approximation of behaviour identified B=2 as the
critical value of connectivity for behaviour change [Derrida
& Pomeau, 1986]. Figure 1 shows the typical behaviour of
networks with R=100 and various B.

cutting-and-pasting of segments of DNA was seen as
causing a change in the connectivity structure of the GRN.
Here nodes were extended to (potentially) include a second
set of B’ connections to defined nodes. Each such dynamic
nodes also performed an assigned rewiring function based
upon the current state of the B’ nodes. Hence on each cycle,
each node updates its state based upon the current state of
the B nodes it is connected to using the Boolean logic
function assigned to it in the standard way. Then, if that
node is also structurally dynamic, those B connections are
altered according to the current state of the B’ nodes it is
connected to using its rewiring table. The moving of the B
connections of a given node via the actions/states of the B’
nodes is therefore seen as an abstraction of one or more of
the possible effects of a mobile element as discussed above,
triggered by one or more of the B’ nodes, causing a change
in the regulatory network which affects the given node. For
simplicity, the number of regulatory connections (B) is
assumed to be the same as for rewiring (B’), as shown in
Figure 2.

Fig. 2:. Example RBN with structural dynamism. The look-up table and
connections for node 3 are shown in an R=6, B=2 network. Nodes capable
of rewiring have B’ extra structure regulation connections into the network
(dashed arrows) and use the state of those nodes to alter the standard B
transcription regulation connections (solid arrows) on the next update cycle
(B’=2). Thus in the RBN shown, node 3 is a dynamic node and uses nodes 1
and 2 to determine any structural changes. At update step t, node 3 is shown
using the states of nodes 4 and 5 to determine its state for the next cycle.
Assuming all nodes are at state ‘0’, the given node above would transit to
state ‘1’ for the next cycle and source its B inputs from nodes 4-1=3 and
5+1=6 on that subsequent cycle, as defined in the first row of the table
shown.
Fig. 1: Typical behavior of RBN: top, showing example temporal dynamics;
and below, the average behaviour (100 runs) after 5000 update cycles.

III. TWO MOBILE DNA MECHANISMS
In the aforementioned initial studies of mobile DNA in
RBN [Bull, 2012a; 2013], structural dynamism was seen as a
consequence of the actions of DNA transposons. That is, the

As in [Kaufman, 1993], a genetic hill-climber was
considered previously, as it is here. Each RBN is represented
as a list to define each node’s Boolean function, B
connection ids, B’ connection ids, connection changes table
entries (range +/-5), and whether it is a dynamic node or not.
Mutation can therefore either (with equal probability): alter
the Boolean function of a randomly chosen node; alter a

randomly chosen B connection (used as the initial
connectivity if a dynamic node); turn a node into or out of
being a dynamic rewiring node; alter one of the rewiring
entries in the look-up table if it is a dynamic node; or, alter a
randomly chosen B’ connection, again only if it is a dynamic
node. A mutated GRN becomes the parent for the next
generation if its fitness is higher than that of the original. In
the case of fitness ties the number of dynamic nodes is
considered, with the smaller number favoured, the decision
being arbitrary upon a further tie. Hence there is a slight
selective pressure against structural dynamism.
Results showed such structural dynamism was selected for
under various conditions and analysis of the underlying
behaviour indicated that the dynamic nodes typically
experience constant rewiring during execution, usually
moving between a finite set of connections as the RBN
moves through its (deterministic) attractor. That is, the
rewiring connections were typically made to nodes which
alter their state within the attractor of the network.

deterministic context-sensitive form of dynamic node can be
defined which incrementally alters the number of 0’s or 1’s
in the Boolean function table for that node, as shown in
Figure 3. Hence on each cycle, each node updates its state
based upon the current state of the B nodes it is connected to
using the Boolean logic function assigned to it in the
standard way. Then, if that node is also functionally
dynamic, the node function is altered according to the
current state of the B’ nodes it is connected to. Entries in the
B’ columns can now be either a 0 or 1. A node’s Boolean
logic function is stored as a binary string of 2 B bits. The first
bit in that logic function table which is not the same as the
entry in the dynamic table indexed by the current state of the
B’ connections is flipped. In this way node function can be
varied in an incremental way based upon the current internal
and external state of the RBN, here seen as capturing
different aspects of mobile DNA than the structural
dynamism. Lifetime changes are not inherited here.
IV. PHYCHIP

Fig. 3:. Example RBN with functional dynamism. The look-up table and
connections for node 3 are shown in an R=6, B=2 network. Nodes capable
of re-functioning have B’ extra regulation connections into the network
(dashed arrows) and use the state of those nodes to alter the node’s Boolean
logic function on the next update cycle (B’=B). Thus in the RBN shown,
node 3 is a dynamic node and uses nodes 1 and 2 to determine any
functional changes. At update step t, node 3 is shown using a NAND
function to determine its state for the next cycle (encoded as 1110).
Assuming all nodes are at state ‘0’, the given node above would transit to
state ‘1’ for the next cycle and alter the first non-zero bit in its function
table on that subsequent cycle, as defined in the first row of the table
shown, hence changing to XOR (encoded as 0110).

Probabilistic RBN (e.g., see [Shmulevich & Dougherty,
2010]) allow for a change in node function within a given set
according to a fixed distribution. It has long been noted (e.g.,
see [Kauffman, 1984]) that a bias in the Boolean function
space of the traditional RBN - that is, a deviation from the
expected average probability P of 0.5 for either state as the
output - reduces the number of attractors and their size for a
given number of nodes and connectivity. Following the node
relative adjustment scheme used for connectivity, a

We are currently designing and fabricating a massively
parallel biomorphic computing device built and operated by
the slime mould Physarum polycephalum (see [Adamatzky
et al., 2012]). Physarum polycephalum belongs to the
species of order Physarales and has a potentially complex
life cycle. Plasmodium is a `vegetative' phase of the life
cycle, wherein the slime mould exists as a single cell with a
myriad of diploid nuclei. The plasmodium is visible to the
naked eye and looks like an amorphous yellowish mass with
networks of protoplasmic tubes. The plasmodium behaves
and moves as a giant amoeba and feeds on bacteria, spores
and other microbial creatures and micro-particles. When
foraging for its food the plasmodium propagates towards
sources of food particles, surrounds them, secretes enzymes
and digests the food. When several sources of nutrients are
scattered in the plasmodium's range, the plasmodium forms a
network of protoplasmic tubes connecting the masses of
protoplasm at the food sources (Figure 4).

Fig. 4: Showing the slime mould Physarum polycephalum in the
plasmodium phase, attracted to eight spatially separated food sources. From
[Adamatzky et al., 2012].

Due to its unique features and relative ease of use for
experimentation, the plasmodium has become a test
biological substrate for the implementation of various
computational tasks. The induction of behaviour and spatial
form/pattern is determined partly by the environment,
specifically nutrient quality and substrate hardness, dryness
etc. Physarum can therefore be viewed as a computational
material based upon the modification of protoplasm
transport via the presence/absence of external stimuli.
Moreover, it is sensitive to illumination and AC electric
fields and therefore allows for the parallel and nondestructive input of information. Physarum is typically used
such that it represents results of computation by the
configuration of its body. The problems solved by the
plasmodium include mazes, calculation of efficient
networks, construction of logical gates, data clustering, and
robot control (see [Adamatzky, 2010] for an overview).
The Physarum-based biomorphic device – “Phychip” envisaged is shown in Figure 5. Protoplasmic tubes of
Physarum coated with conductive substances interfaced with
living blobs of plasmodium are the basic units. The living
blobs play the role of sensors and processing units. Such blobs
will communicate with each other using fast electrical signal
transfer via conductor coated tubes, and slow electrical and
bio-chemical signal transfer along living protoplasmic tubes.

Fig. 5: Proposed scheme of the Physarum chip. The chip will consist of
interwoven living and conductor-coated networks and layers of optical and
electrical I/O. From [Adamatzky et al., 2012].

In terms of classical computing architectures, the
following characteristics can be attributed to such chips: massive parallelism: there are thousands of elementary
processing units, micro-volumes, in a slime mould
colonised in a Petri dish
 local connectivity: micro-volumes of cytoplasm change their
states, due to diffusion and reaction, depending on states
of, or concentrations of, reactants, shape and electrical
charges in their closest neighbours

 parallel input and output: Physarum computes by
changing its shape, can record computation optically;
Physarum is light sensitive, data can be inputted by
localized illumination
 fault tolerance: being constantly in a shape changing state,
Physarum chips can restore their architecture even after
a substantial part of a protoplasmic network is removed.
One planned use of the chip is to implement RBN within
the network of plasmodium blobs, using computational
intelligence techniques to determine the design for a given
task. As noted above, it has already been shown how some
Boolean logic gates can be implemented in the slime mould,
e.g., Tsuda et al. [2004] describe the creation of AND, OR
and NOT gates. Hence the design of RBN using the
restricted set of B-input {AND, NAND, OR, NOR} gates
and spatially local connectivity (nodes can only connect to
the eight nodes surrounding them, or fewer on
edges/corners) is considered here.
V. PHYCHIP EXPERIMENTATION
In the following, two well-known logic problems are used
to begin to explore the characteristics and capabilities of the
general approach. The multiplexer task is used since they
can be used to build many other logic circuits, including
larger multiplexers. These Boolean functions are defined for
binary strings of length l = k + 2k under which the k bits
index into the remaining 2k bits, returning the value of the
indexed bit. Hence the multiplexer has multiple inputs and a
single output. Adders have multiple inputs and multiple
outputs. As such, a simple example is used here. A simple
sequential logic task is also used here - the JK latch. In all
cases, the correct response to a given input results in a
quality increment of 1, with all possible binary inputs being
presented per solution evaluation. Upon each presentation of
an input, each bit is applied to the first connection of each
corresponding node in the RBN. The RBN is then executed
for 10 cycles. The value on the predetermined output node(s)
is then taken as the response. All results presented are the
average of 20 runs. Experience found R=5x5= 25
nodes/blobs was useful across the problems explored here.
Figure 6 shows performance on k=2 versions of the three
tasks: the 6-bit multiplexer (opt. 64), 2-bit adder (opt. 16),
and 2-input JK latch (opt. 4). Only structural dynamism is
used given the non-trivial physical manipulation of the
plasmodium needed to exhibit a given logic gate [Tsuda et
al., 2004]. Given the known underlying dynamics of RBN
(section II), B=2. As can be seen, optimal performance is
reached in all cases, with varying numbers of dynamic
nodes. That is, discrete dynamical circuits capable of the
given logic functions have been designed for potential
implementation on the Phychip. Figure 6 also shows the
performance of the equivalent traditional RBN, i.e., without
structural dynamism, which is statistically significantly
worse on the multiplexer and adder (T-test, p<0.05), and the
same on the latch (T-test, p≥0.05).

VI. SMART SURFACE
On the surface of many cells are thin hair-like structures;
cilia. Once considered vestigial, these cilia are functioning
organelles of which there are two types. Non-motile or
primary cilia, typically serve as sensory organelles with roles
in chemical sensation (as in olfaction), signal transduction
(rod photoreceptors in vision) and control of cell growth.
Motile cilia are often found in clusters and move in
coordinated ways, capable of registering surrounding fluid
flow such as in the trachea or kidneys. If the combined
properties of these cilia could be created and controlled, they
could perform the functions of both motion and sensory
perception in an intelligent system, sensing and identifying
properties of objects on the artificial cilia surface, and
potentially moving in a coordinated way to project the object
along a predetermined trajectory according to its properties.
In effect, a multitude of biologically inspired cilia could
create the emergent properties of both sorting and
transporting objects around an intelligent manipulator
surface. We are currently building an intelligent autonomous
massively parallel manipulator with the aim of achieving the
distributed sensing, recognition, analysis, sorting,
transportation and manipulation of light-weight objects.
Some of the potential benefits of the decentralised
manipulator surface are:
 absence of a central processor responsible for all
computation - all cells of the surface act in parallel,
fulfilling a collective task
 the number of simultaneously manipulated objects is not
restricted by computational capability of the central
processor
 the system is scalable, i.e. manipulator area can be varied
(by adding/removing cells) without reprogramming.
 the system is robust against individual component faults decentralised control and parallel operation ensure that
no single component fault results in the overall system
faulting.

Fig. 6: Typical evolutionary performance of RBN with and without mobile
DNA-inspired mechanisms for the four benchmark tasks. Fitness shown as
fraction of correct inputs.

Previous approaches to implement such systems include
airjets (e.g., [Moon & Luntz, 2006]), mechanical wheelbased arrangements (e.g., [Murphey & Burdick, 2004]), and
in micro electro mechanical systems (MEMS) (e.g., [Ataka
et al., 2009]). The hardware implementation of our system
will be based on an array of piezo-actuators (Figure 7). This
system will serve as an experimental platform and enable us
to demonstrate many of the properties listed above. It is
expected that each axis of each actuator will consist of eight
piezo elements; object movement will be achieved by
driving the appropriate transducer element groups. Mass
induced changes in piezo-electric element resonant
frequency established through monitoring impedance
variation will be used to sense the presence of an object.
The design of distributed controllers for such systems is
non-trivial and hence computational intelligence techniques
may be usefully employed. In the only known related work,

Matignon et al. (e.g., [2010]) have explored using
reinforcement learning approaches. As noted above, we are
interested in the evolution of an RBN controller to exist
within each cell of the surface, sensing and acting locally,
i.e., akin to the cells of multicellular organisms (see [Bull,
2012b] for a review of related multi-GRN work). In the
aforementioned initial work on structural dynamism in RBN
it was found that the new mechanism can facilitate
behavioural differentiation in two coupled cells [Bull, 2013].
To act as a controller, each RBN receives five sensor inputs
as to the presence or absence of an object: itself and the four
cardinal direction cells (von Neumann neighbourhood of
cellular automata). To facilitate the emergence of useful cellcell communication, each RBN also receives an input from a
predetermined node in each of the RBN of its four cardinal
neighbouring cells. Thus, following the input scheme above,
the first nine nodes of a given RBN each receives an external
input as its first connection. Possible outputs are to move the
actuator in one of the four cardinal directions, hence two
output nodes are predetermined.

times. If all cells under an object give the same action, the
object moves in that direction. Fitness in each case is the
distance of the middle of the object from the middle of the
surface, with the fitness of an RBN simply the sum of the
fitness in each of the two scenarios. Here R=20 and B=2, all
Boolean functions are allowed, results averaged over 20
runs.

Fig. 7: Proposed piezo-ceramic actuator layout of each cell in a multi-celled
smart surface.

VII. SMART SURFACE EXPERIMENTATION
In the following experiments we begin to explore a
fundamental aspect of controller design for such distributed
systems – the ability to correctly recognize an object and
respond appropriately. More specifically, the task of
distinguishing between two objects by moving them in
different directions is considered. In these initial
experiments, a box of 3x1 cells must be moved as far north
as possible from the middle of a surface of 12x12 cells
having been placed horizontally. That is, the object is placed
on cells 75, 76 and 77 of the 144, with the fitness calculated
as the distance between the middle section of the object and
cell 76. The surface is then reset, i.e., each RBN is set to its
start configuration, and a box of 5x1 cells is similarly placed
horizontally in the middle of the surface and must be moved
as far south as possible. In each case, each RBN updates in
parallel internally for 10 cycles for a given sensor input
before its action is determined. This process is repeated 10

Fig. 8: Typical evolutionary performance of RBN with and without mobile
DNA-inspired mechanisms for the benchmark surface task. Fitness shown
as fraction of known optimum.

Figure 8 shows performance with structural dynamism (as
above) and both structural and functional dynamism. As can
be seen, in both cases typical performance is better than the
standard RBN representation (T-test, p<0.05). Moreover, the
combined dynamism performs better than just the structural
version (T-test, p<0.05). Both versions of the RBN using the
mobile DNA-inspired mechanisms evolve to significantly
separate the two objects whereas the traditional approach

typically only evolves to move both objects in the same
direction. That is, only with the extra mechanisms are the
cells in the ambiguous positions under the objects able to
distinguish between the two.
VIII. CONCLUSION
There is a growing body of work within computational
intelligence which explores representations more closely
analogous to the genetic machinery seen in nature, i.e.,
artificial regulatory networks. Adoption of these relatively
generic representations creates the opportunity to exploit
new mechanisms from microbiology. That is, molecular
biologists have identified a variety of mechanisms through
which changes in DNA occur in natural regulatory networks
in ways other than the processes which inspired the
traditional heuristics of evolutionary computation: specific
biochemical processes generate novelty through targeted
DNA restructuring based upon the internal and external state
of a GRN during the organismal lifecycle. This paper has
presented initial results from using two new mechanisms
within GRN to solve computational tasks. Current work is
seeking to incorporate other mechanisms, as well as
determining the general effectiveness of such systems.
This work was partially supported by EPSRC grant no.
EP/H023631/1 and EU FP7-ICT project no. 316366.
REFERENCES
[1] Adamatzky, A. (2010) Physarum Machines. World
Scientific.
[2] Adamatzky, A., Erokhin V., Grube M., Schubert T., &
Schumann, A. (2012) Physarum Chip Project: Growing
Computers from Slime Mould. Unconventional
Computing 8: 319-323
[3] Ataka, M., Legrand, B., Buchaillot, L., Collard, D. &
Fujita, H. (2009) Design, Fabrication, and Operation of
Two-dimensional Conveyance System with Ciliary
Actuator Arrays. IEEE ASME Transactions on
Mechatronics 14(1): 119-125.
[4] Bull, L. (2012a) Evolving Boolean Networks with
Structural Dynamism. Artificial Life 18(4): 385-398.
[5] Bull, L. (2012b) Evolving Boolean networks on tunable
fitness landscapes. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary
Computation 16(6): 817-828.
[6] Bull, L. (2013) Consideration of Mobile DNA: New
Forms of Artificial Genetic Regulatory Networks.
Natural Computing (in press).
[7] Bull, L., Budd, A., Stone, C., Uroukov, I., De Lacy
Costello, B. & Adamatzky, A. (2008) Towards
Unconventional Computing Through Simulated
Evolution: Learning Classifier System Control of NonLinear Media. Artificial Life 14(2): 203-222
[8] Craig, N., Craigie, R, Gellert, M, Lambowitz, AM
(2002). Mobile DNA II. American Society for
Microbiology Press.
[9] Derrida, B. & Pomeau, Y. (1986) Random networks of
automata: a simple annealed approximation. Europhys.
Lett. 1: 45-49.

Howard, D., Bull, L., De Lacy Costello, B. &
Adamatzky, A. (2013) Creating Unorganised Machines
from Memristors. International Journal of Applied
Mathematics and Information Sciences (in press).
[11] Kauffman, S. A. (1969) Metabolic Stability and
Epigenesis in Randomly Constructed Genetic Nets.
Journal of Theoretical Biology 22:437-467.
[12] Kauffman, S.A. (1984) Emergent properties in random
complex automata. Physica D 10: 145.
[13] Kauffman, S.A. (1993) The Origins of Order. Oxford
University Press.
[14] Kazazian, H. (2004) Mobile Elements: Drivers of
genome evolution. Science 303: 1626-1638.
[15] Matignon, L., Laurent, G., Le Fort-Piat, N. & Chapuis,
Y-A. (2010) Designing Decentralized Controllers for
Distributed-air-jet MEMS-based Micromanipulators by
Reinforcement Learning. Journal of Intelligent and
Robotic Systems 145(2): 59-80.
[16] McClintock, B. (1987) Discovery and Characterization
of Transposable Elements: The collected papers of
Barbara McClintock. Garland.
[17] Moon, H. & Luntz, J. (2006) Distributed Manipulation
of Flat Objects with Two Airflow Sinks. IEEE
Transactions on Robotics 22(6): 1189-1201.
[18] Murphey, T. & Burdick, J. (2004) Feedback Control
Methods for Distributed Manipulation Systems that
Involve Mechanical Contacts. International Journal of
Robotics Research 23(7-8): 763-781.
[19] Preen, R. & Bull, L. (2009) Discrete Dynamical Genetic
Programming in XCS. In GECCO-2009: Proceedings of
the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference.
ACM Press, pp1299-1306.
[20] Sapin, E., Bull, L. & Adamatzky, A. (2009) Genetic
Approaches to Search for Computing Patterns in
Cellular Automata. IEEE Computational Intelligence
Magazine 4(3): 20-28.
st
[21] Shapiro, J. (2011) Evolution: A view from the 21
century. FT Press.
[22] Shmulevich, I. & Dougherty, E. (2010) Probabilistic
Boolean Networks: The Modeling and Control of Gene
Regulatory Networks. Society for Industrial and Applied
Mathematics.
[23] Tan, P. & Tay, J. (2006) Evolving Boolean Networks to
Find Intervention Points in Dengue Pathogenesis. In
GECCO-2006: Proceedings of the Genetic and
Evolutionary Computation Conference. Springer,
pp307-308.
[24] Toth, R., Stone, C., De Lacy Costello, B., Adamatzky,
A. & Bull, L. (2008) Dynamic Control and Information
Processing in the Belousov-Zhabotinsky Reaction using
a Co-evolutionary Algorithm. Journal of Chemical
Physics 129: 184708.
[25] Tsuda, S., Aono, M. & Gunji, Y-P. (2004) Robust and
Emergent Physarum-computing. BioSystems 73: 45-55.
[26] Van den Broeck, C. & Kawai, R. (1990) Learning in
Feedforward Boolean Networks. Physical Review A 42:
6210-6218.
[10]

