Modelling and Analysis of Biochemical Signalling
Pathway Cross-talk
Robin Donaldson, Muffy Calder
Department of Computing Science,
University of Glasgow
Glasgow, UK
radonald@dcs.gla.ac.uk,
muffy@dcs.gla.ac.uk

Signalling pathways are abstractions that help life scientists structure the coordination of cellular
activity. Cross-talk between pathways accounts for many of the complex behaviours exhibited by
signalling pathways and is often critical in producing the correct signal-response relationship. Formal models of signalling pathways and cross-talk in particular can aid understanding and drive experimentation. We define an approach to modelling based on the concept that a pathway is the
(synchronising) parallel composition of instances of generic modules (with internal and external labels). Pathways are then composed by (synchronising) parallel composition and renaming; different
types of cross-talk result from different combinations of synchronisation and renaming. We define a
number of generic modules in PRISM and five types of cross-talk: signal flow, substrate availability, receptor function, gene expression and intracellular communication. We show that Continuous
Stochastic Logic properties can both detect and distinguish the types of cross-talk. The approach is
illustrated with small examples and an analysis of the cross-talk between the TGF-β /BMP, WNT and
MAPK pathways.

1

Introduction

Signalling pathways1 are well-known abstractions that help life scientists structure the coordination of
cellular activity. Interaction between pathways, known as cross-talk, appears to have arisen for several
reasons, for example to integrate signals, to produce a variety of responses to a signal, to reuse proteins
between pathways; it accounts for many of the complex signalling behaviours.
This paper investigates modelling and analysis of pathway cross-talk; a key outcome is the suitability
of process algebraic operators to modelling cross-talk. We define an approach to modelling based on
the concept that a pathway is the (synchronising) parallel composition of instances of generic modules
(with internal and external labels). Pathways are then composed by (synchronising) parallel composition
and renaming; different types of cross-talk result from different combinations of synchronisation and
renaming. We use the PRISM modelling language and model checker. The contribution of the paper is
the following:
• novel categorisation of types of cross-talk
• modelling based on pathway module instantiation, internal/external reactions & synchronisation
over subsets of (possibly renamed) external reactions
1 we

refer simply to pathways henceforth

E. Merelli and P. Quaglia (Eds.)
From Biology To Concurrency and back 2010 (FBTC’10)
EPTCS 19, 2010, pp. 40–54, doi:10.4204/EPTCS.19.3

c R. Donaldson & M. Calder
This work is licensed under the
Creative Commons Attribution License.

R. Donaldson & M. Calder

41

• examples of modelling each type of cross-talk
• detection and characterisation of cross-talk using Continuous Stochastic Logic
• application of approach to a case study: cross-talk between TGF-β /BMP, WNT and MAPK pathways.
This paper is organised as follows. The following section outlines the background to signalling
pathway cross-talk and defines a novel categorisation based on examples in the literature. In section 3
we describe the modelling approach. In section 4 we show how each type of cross-talk is modelled for an
example pathway and how we can detect and characterise the cross-talk using CSL. Section 5 describes
the case study, cross-talk between TGF-β /BMP, WNT and MAPK pathways, and gives some results.
Section 6 contains a discussion of our overall approach and Section 7 reviews related work. Conclusions
and directions for future work are in section 8.
Throughout the paper the following notation is used. Transformation (e.g. protein X turns into
protein Y ) is denoted by a solid line with an arrow. Catalysis (increase in the rate of a reaction) is
denoted by a dashed line with an arrow. Inhibition (decrease in the rate of a reaction) is denoted by a
solid line with a blunt end. Finally, we distinguish between inactive proteins and active proteins rather
than the various mechanisms by which a protein changes state. An active protein is decorated with ∗, e.g
X is inactive and X ∗ is active. This notation is illustrated in Figure 1(a).

!"#

!"#

!"#$%&'"(#)'$*
+#,#-.%/%*

$#

$#

&#

0$1/2/)'$*
3"',4/$*

%#

56)7#,48*3"',4/$*

%# $#

%#

%#

&#

Figure 1: a) the notation used throughout this paper for arcs and nodes, b) an example of a 2-stage
signalling cascade in which the activated protein X catalyses the activation of protein Y .

2

Signalling Pathways & Cross-talk

Pathways are the mechanism by which a cell receives a signal and produces the appropriate cellular
response. A cell can respond to many different signals, and the same signalling pathway can produce
different responses based on different signals. For example, the well-studied MAPK/ERK pathway can
respond with cellular proliferation or cellular differentiation depending on the type of growth-factor
present [1]. Many of the reactions involved in signalling pathways are enzyme catalysed protein activations, often arranged in a “signalling cascade”. In such a cascade, the activated protein on one “level” is
the enzyme for the activating reaction of the next “level”, as shown in Figure 1(b).
Signalling pathways were first thought to be a linear series of reactions, but more recently, detailed
understanding of these pathways shows that they are non-linear [2]. The series of reactions forming

Modelling and Analysis of Biochemical Signalling Pathway Cross-talk

42

the pathway can, for example, diverge or interact upstream/downstream in the chain of reactions forming a feedback/feedforward loop. Laboratory techniques measuring the concentration of proteins or
RNAs/DNAs in the cell under different conditions now enable biologists to build appropriate abstractions of pathways. This is an incremental process further complicated by the lack of clear definition
of what constitutes a single pathway. It is an inexact science to define the boundaries between pathways. Often, the boundaries are simply drawn such that the abstraction of the pathway can explain the
biological data.
The term cross-talk was first applied to electronic circuits to describe a signal in one circuit having
an undesired effect on another circuit [3]. Cross-talk in this setting is a design flaw: the electronic circuit
has been specified and built, and has resulted in an undesired interaction between signals, called “signal
interference”. Biochemical cross-talk [4] is an interaction between signals flowing through two or more
signalling pathways in a cell, however, this is not necessarily indicative of signal interference.

2.1 Types of Cross-talk
Cross-talk can occur at all stages of signal propagation through a pathway. Although there is some discussion of types of cross-talk [5], there appears to be no universal categorisation in the literature. Here,
we define five categories of cross-talk: signal flow, substrate availability, receptor function, gene expression and intracellular communication. The five categories are illustrated in Figure 2 and are discussed in
more detail below, with reference to an indicative example. We note that four of the five categories are
alluded to in [6] but are not made specific.
2.1.1

Signal Flow Cross-talk

Signal flow cross-talk between two pathway occurs when a molecular species in one pathway affects
the signal flow (rate of protein activation) in another pathway, shown in Figure 2(a). The species affects
the signal flow by altering the rate(s) of the activation or deactivation reactions in the other pathway.
Typically, this interaction occurs in the cytoplasm and affects the rate of the downstream signal. For
example, in [4] there is signal flow cross-talk between the MAPK and Integrin signalling pathways.
Activation of the Integrin pathway enhances signalling through the MAPK pathway by increased rate of
activation of key proteins in the pathway.
2.1.2

Substrate Availability Cross-talk

Substrate availability cross-talk occurs when two pathways compete for one or more common or homologous proteins (proteins that perform the same function), shown in Figure 2(b). For example [7] describes
two pathways that compete for activation of the MAPK cascade. The pathways share the MAPKKK
protein STE11 and have homologous MAPKK and MAPK proteins.
2.1.3

Receptor Function Cross-talk

Cross-talk can occur at the level of the pathway receptor, shown in Figure 2(c). The receptor’s ability
to detect a ligand can be affected by cross-talk, for example, being inhibited (thus slowing or blocking
signal propagation) or activated (thus producing signal propagating in absence of the ligand). In [8] other
signalling pathways can activate the estrogen receptor in the absence of the estrogen ligand.

R. Donaldson & M. Calder
2.1.4

43

Gene Expression Cross-talk

Cross-talk can occur at the level of gene expression within the nucleus, shown in Figure 2(d). In this
case, there is an interaction between pathways in terms of genes that will be expressed or repressed, for
example, through activating/deactivating transcription factors (TFs) or increasing/reducing the number
of TFs. In [9] two pathways contain cross-talk within the nucleus. One pathway contains a transcription
factor called GR that resides outside the nucleus in its inactive state. Upon activation (signalling), GR
relocates to the nucleus and represses the transcription factor NF-κ B that is activated through another
pathway.

2.1.5

Intracellular Communication Cross-talk

Finally, signalling pathways can cross-talk using the less direct manner of intracellular communication,
shown in Figure 2(e). Instead of physical interaction between the proteins that comprise the pathways,
one pathway can release a ligand that activates another pathway. In [5] the TGF-β /BMP and WNT
pathways reciprocally regulate the production of their ligands. There is some contention in the literature
as to whether this is genuine cross-talk: the interaction is less-direct than other types of cross-talk and
involves lengthy processes such as gene expression and ligand excretion.

3

Modelling

Our aim is to build models of pathways and their cross-talk in a modular fashion, whilst demonstrating
our cross-talk categorisation.
The literature contains many examples of modelling biological systems based on an unstructured set
of equations, for example Ordinary Differential Equations (ODEs) [10]. However, flat equations have
disadvantages such as lack of structure and modularity – there is no accepted way of dealing the with
composition of these models. Several formal languages from Computer Science have well-understood
notions of structure.
We choose a state-based formalism, the PRISM modelling language [11], with modules, renaming
and synchronous communication between modules. The semantics is given by continuous-time Markov
chains (CTMCs), which can be analysed using the PRISM model checker with Continuous Stochastic
Logic (CSL). We give a brief overview of the language.
The language is based on “reactive modules”, each of which can contain local variables. The variables are updated by the execution of commands that have the following syntax,
[label] guard -> rate:update_statement. Commands are only executable when their guard
becomes true, and any label synchronises as required. The rate is used to build the underlying CTMC,
providing both the probability and timing information of the state after update_statement executes.
Modules can be composed concurrently, synchronising (multiway) on the commands whose labels
occur in the synchronisation set, L. For example, given modules M1 and M2, and set of labels L,
M1 |[L]| M2 denotes the concurrent composition of M1 and M2, synchronising on all labels in L. If
the label set is omitted, M1 || M2, then M1 synchronises with M2 on the intersection of labels occurring
in M1 and M2. PRISM also allows renaming of labels, denoted thus M1 {old label ← new label}, and
hiding, denoted thus M / {label1, . . . , labeln}. Hidden labels are not available for synchronisation.

Modelling and Analysis of Biochemical Signalling Pathway Cross-talk

44

()##*+(,-./-0#12/34/(343-5#

!"##$%&'!(#)(*+#
,-#

,/#

!"#

!%#

.-#

./#

$"#

$%#
7#

4#

4#2#

3#

1#

1# 2#

0#

3#2#

7%#&#

7"#&#

!"#

0# 2#

!"##$%!%&'()#*+,!-(,#

'#&#

'#

+,''(%)%'-./0%&&12)'

./#
$0#

$/#

1#

6#&#

6#

34'

36'

54'

56'

1# 2#
*'
3#

3# 2#

*' 9'
78'

:' 9'

:'

9'

78'

!"#$%"&'

(%)%'*'

%+'',-./0#%$$"$0/'12(("-3#042-'
56'

57'
)7'

)6'
57'
()!*'
<'
9:'

<' ;'

;'

9:'

='

=' ;'
!"#$%"&'

8%-%'57'

Figure 2: An example of each of the five types of cross-talk: a) a pathway up-regulates signal flow
through another pathway, b) two pathways compete for a protein, c) a pathway activates the receptor of
another pathway in the absence of a ligand, d) two pathways have conflicting transcriptional responses,
e) a pathway releases a ligand for another pathway. The following notation is used: L1/L2 - ligands,
R1/R2 - receptors, W/X/Y/Z - Proteins, TF - Transcription Factor.

3.1 Generic Modules
We define a pathway module to be a behavioural pattern within a pathway. For example, commonly
occurring pathway modules are: receptor, 3-stage cascade and gene expression (Figure 3).
We represent these by generic modules in PRISM as follows. We adopt the reagent-centric modelling
style, as first presented in [12]. Local variables contain the concentration of proteins in a particular
state (e.g. active, inactive). Labelled commands change protein concentration according to biochemical
reactions. Reactions are considered to be external or internal. The former denote behaviour that can
coordinate (or be coordinated with) behaviour in other modules, they are available for synchronisation.
The latter reactions are hidden and are not available for synchronisation. Concentration is modelled by

R. Donaldson & M. Calder

45

-&$&.+/0(
#"

!"

!"#$"%&'(()*#+",&(
')"

!"

!"

*" $"'1"
'3"

!"

$"'."

+"

'-"
'0"

,"

%."

'&"

1&2&(34.0&##5/2(
4'5'"

'/"

'&."

%&"
'("

*"

6789'%5" '&)" !"

'&("

+" $" !"
," $"

'&2"

'&&"

Figure 3: Three generic pathway modules: receptor, 3-stage cascade and gene expression. There are 14
external reactions (e1, . . . , e14) denoted by black arcs, 2 internal reactions (i1, i2) denoted by gray arcs
and 6 species that are present in the initial state denoted by shaded ellipses.
discrete, abstract levels, as defined in [13]. Here, we consider strong abstractions, usually two levels
{0,1}, and unit reaction rates. Due to the ligand production reaction e4, ligand has three levels {0,1,2},
and the rate of ligand-receptor binding reflects the level of the ligand (law of mass-action).
The PRISM modules for receptor, 3-stage cascade and gene expression are the following.
module Receptor
R : [0..1] init 1;
[i1_1]
[e1_1]
[e2_1]
[e3_1]
[e4_1]
endmodule

L1 : [0..2] init 1;

R1Active : [0..1] init 0;

R1 = 1 & L1 >= 1 & R1Active = 0 -> L1:(R1’ = 0) & (L1’ = 0) & (R1Active’ = 1);
R1Active = 1 -> 1:(R1Active’ = R1Active);
R1Active = 1 -> 1:(R1Active’ = R1Active);
R1 = 1 & R1Active = 0 -> 1:(R1’ = 0) & (R1Active’ = 1);
L1 < 2 -> 1:(L1’ = L1 + 1);

module Cascade3
X1Inactive : [0..1] init 1;
Y1Active : [0..1] init 0;

X1Active : [0..1] init 0;
Z1Inactive : [0..1] init 1;

[e5_1] X1Inactive = 1 & X1Active = 0 -> 1:(X1Inactive’
[e6_1] Y1Inactive = 1 & Y1Active = 0 & X1Active = 1 ->
[e7_1] Y1Inactive = 1 & Y1Active = 0 -> 1:(Y1Inactive’
[i2_1] Z1Inactive = 1 & Z1Active = 0 & Y1Active = 1 ->
[e8_1] X1Active = 1 -> 1:(X1Active’ = X1Active);
[e9_1] X1Active = 0 -> 1:(X1Active’ = 1);
[e10_1] Z1Active = 0 -> 1:(Z1Active’ = Z1Active);
[e11_1] Z1Active = 1 -> 1:(Z1Active’ = Z1Active);
[e12_1] X1Inactive = 1 -> 1:(X1Inactive’ = 0);
endmodule
module GeneExpression
Gene1 : [0..1] init 1;

Y1Inactive : [0..1] init 1;
Z1Active : [0..1] init 0;

= 0) & (X1Active’ =
1:(Y1Inactive’ = 0)
= 0) & (Y1Active’ =
1:(Z1Inactive’ = 0)

Protein1 : [0..1] init 0;

[e13_1] Gene1 = 1 & Protein1 = 0 -> 1:(Gene1’ = 0) & (Protein1’ = 1);
[e14_1] Protein1 = 1 -> 1:(Protein1’ = 0);
endmodule

1);
& (Y1Active’ = 1);
1);
& (Z1Active’ = 1);

Modelling and Analysis of Biochemical Signalling Pathway Cross-talk

46

We will treat these modules as generic, that is, we instantiate them (strictly, duplicate and rename in
PRISM) for multiple occurrences. For brevity, we adopt the following convention. For generic module
M, Mi denotes an instance of M with every variable and label renamed by an indexed form. For example,
variable v becomes v1 in module M1 .

3.2 Pathways
A pathway is a parallel composition of instances of the generic modules, renaming labels to coordinate
synchronisation within the pathway.
Definition 1. Let G be a set of generic modules. A pathway P has the form f1 X1 |[L1 ]| . . . |[Ln−1 ]| fn Xn
where X1 . . . Xn are instances of modules in G, f1 . . . fn are compositions of renamings and hidings and
L1 . . . Ln−1 are labels.
As an example, consider the expression of a pathway comprising the active receptor catalysing the
activation of protein X and active protein Z catalysing the expression of Gene. This is defined by:
P1 = Receptor1 / {i11 } {e11 ← e51 } |[e51 ]| Cascade31 / {i21 } {e111 ← e131 }
|[e131 ]| GeneExpression1
The Receptor1 and Cascade31 modules synchronise on e51 , and Cascade31 and GeneExpression1
synchronise on e131 ; in both cases these are the only external labels that occur in both modules. Internal
reactions i11 and i21 are hidden using the / operator.

3.3 Composition of Pathways
In a similar way, pathways can be composed, synchronising on external labels.
Definition 2. Given two pathways P1 and P2 , with sets of external labels ext(P1 ) and ext(P2 ) resp., if
ext(P1 ) ∩ ext(P2 ) = {} then the pathways are independent, otherwise there is crosstalk.
As an example of independent pathways, consider P1 and P2 (shown in Figure 4), where
P2 = Receptor2 / {i12 } {e12 ← e52 } |[e52 ]| Cascade32 / {i22 } {e112 ← e132 }
|[e132 ]| GeneExpression2
We synchronise P1 and P2 over the unused external reactions, i.e. the reactions that are otherwise
never involved in synchronisation. In this case, P1 |[U ]| P2 where U = {e21 , e31 , e41 , e71 , e81 , e91 , e101 ,
e121 , e141 , e22 , e32 , e42 , e72 , e82 , e92 , e102 , e122 , e142 }. Since the labels in U occur in only one
pathway they cannot synchronise and their corresponding actions never execute.
P1 and P2 are independent pathways, since ext(P1 ) ∩ ext(P2 ) = {}. We can also demonstrate independence through CSL properties. For example, the following CSL property expresses that it is not
possible to activate P1 without activating receptor R1 or activate P2 without activating receptor R2 .
P1 |[U ]| P2 |= P≤0 [ F(RActive1 = 0 ∧ Protein1 = 1) ∨ F(RActive2 = 0 ∧ Protein2 = 1) ]
In the next section we consider the case where the intersection is not empty; specifically, we consider
examples of the five possible types of cross-talk between P1 and P2 .

4

Cross-talk models

We now consider the five possible types of cross-talk between P1 and P2 . In the previous section
we synchronised P1 and P2 over U , the set of unused reactions. We now synchronise over E and U ,
P1 |[E, U ]| P2 , where E = ext(P1 ) ∩ ext(P2 ), i.e. the common external labels between P1 and P2 , which
may involve renaming. For each type we give a general description and then an explicit example.

R. Donaldson & M. Calder

47

!"#
5"$

4"$
!#"$

!$#
!%"$ !$

-""$

!#/$

&$!/ $

4"$

"

!0"$

&$!/ $
/

!"/$

6"$

&$!2 $
"

!"/"$

!9"$

!$
7"$

!."$
!1"$

7"$

8"$

-/"$

8"$

&$ !$
&$

!"""$
'!(!"$

!%/$ !$

-"/$

4/$

!""$

6"$

5/$

4/$

!"3"$

!"#"$ )*+,!-("$ !"%"!$
$

6/$

!0/$

6/$

&$!2 $
/

!"//$

!9/$

!$

7/$

!./$
!1/$

7/$

8/$

-//$

8/$

&$
&$

!""/$
'!(!/$

!$

!"3/$

!"#/$ )*+,!-(/$ !"%/!$
$

Figure 4: The two pathways P1 and P2 each comprising three instances of the generic pathway modules
receptor, 3-stage cascade and gene expression. External reactions are denoted by black arcs, internal
reactions by gray arcs and species that are present in the initial state by shaded ellipses.
We say that there is competition for a protein if the both pathways modify the protein such that they
become unavailable to the other pathway. An enzyme that is shared between two pathways could be
considered competition, however the duration of the enzyme-substrate complex is extremely short. As
such, we ignore this step in our approach.
Signal Flow Cross-talk P1 |[E, U ]| P2 has signal flow cross-talk if E only contains labels from two
cascade modules or labels from a cascade module and catalysis/inhibition labels from a receptor module,
in either case not setting up competition for a protein between the pathways. Example: provide an
additional route to the activation of Y1 through the X2 ∗ enzyme. Synchronise e82 , the enzymatic activity
of X2 ∗, with e71 the alternative route to activate Y1 , by renaming e82 to e71 and synchronising between
pathways on e71 .
P1 |[e71 , U ]| P2 {e82 ← e71 }
where U = {e21 , e31 , e41 , e81 , e91 , e101 , e121 , e141 , e22 , e32 , e42 , e72 , e92 , e102 , e122 , e142 }.
Substrate Availability Cross-talk P1 |[E, U ]| P2 has substrate availability cross-talk if E only contains
labels from cascade modules or labels from a cascade module and catalysis/inhibition labels from a
receptor module, in either case setting up competition for a protein between the pathways. Example:
make both pathways compete for the activation of protein X1 catalysed by their respective receptors R1∗
and R2∗. Within P2 , synchronise e22 , the enzymatic activity of R2 ∗, with e92 , the production of X2 ∗.
Between pathways, synchronise e121 , the degradation of X1 , with the e92 . This produces a new reaction,

Modelling and Analysis of Biochemical Signalling Pathway Cross-talk

48

X1 → X2 ∗ with R2 ∗ as the enzyme. Also, synchronise between pathways on e52 to block the following
reaction, X2 → X2 ∗ with R2 ∗ as the enzyme.
P1 {e121 ← e92 } |[e92 , U ]| P2′
where U = {e21 , e31 , e41 , e71 , e81 , e91 , e101 , e141 , e32 , e42 , e52 , e72 , e82 , e102 , e122 , e142 }
and P2′ = Receptor2 / {i12 } {e12 ← e52 , e22 ← e92 } |[e52 , e92 , ]| Cascade32 / {i22 }
{e112 ← e132 } |[e132 ]| GeneExpression2 .
Receptor Function Cross-talk P1 |[E, U ]| P2 has receptor function cross-talk if E only contains
labels from a receptor module and catalysis/inhibition labels from either a receptor module or a cascade
module. Example: provide an alternative route to activate receptor R2 by the enzyme X1 ∗. Synchronise
e32 , the alternative route to active R2 , with e81 , the enzymatic activity of X1 ∗.
P1 {e81 ← e32 } |[e32 , U ]| P2
where U = {e21 , e31 , e41 , e71 , e91 , e101 , e121 , e141 , e22 , e42 , e72 , e82 , e92 , e102 , e122 , e142 }.
Gene Expression Cross-talk P1 |[E, U ]| P2 has gene expression cross-talk if E only contains labels
from a gene expression module and catalysis/inhibition labels from a cascade module. Example: connect
the inhibiting activity of Z2 ∗ to the expression of Gene1 . Synchronise e102 , the inhibiting activity of Z2 ∗,
with e131 , the expression of Gene1 .
P1 |[e131 , U ]| P2 {e102 ← e131 }
where U =
{e21 , e31 , e41 , e71 , e81 , e91 , e101 , e121 , e141 , e22 , e32 , e42 , e72 , e82 , e92 , e122 , e142 }.
Intracellular Communication Cross-talk P1 |[E, U ]| P2 has intracellular communication cross-talk
if E only contains a protein degradation label from a gene expression module and a ligand production
label from a receptor module. Example connect the degradation of Protein1 to the production of L2 .
Synchronise e141 , the degradation of Protein1 , with e42 , the production of L2 .
P1 {e141 ← e42 } |[e42 , U ]| P2
where U = {e21 , e31 , e41 , e71 , e81 , e91 , e101 , e121 , e22 , e32 , e72 , e82 , e92 , e102 , e122 , e142 }.

4.1 Detecting Cross-talk
We perform Continuous Stochastic Logic (CSL) model checking in PRISM to detect the presence of
cross-talk. For each of the 5 cross-talk models we compute the probability of three properties and note
that cross-talk is detected by a change in probability compared with the independent model. The three
properties are as follows.
Competitive Signal Flow (P1 ): probability of signal flow through P1 before P2
P=? [ F(Protein1 = 1 ∧ Protein2 = 0) ]

Time-dependent Signal Flow (P1 ): probability of signal flow through P1 within 3 time units
P=? [ F≤3 (Protein1 = 1) ]

Time-dependent Signal Flow (P2 ): probability of signal flow through P2 within 3 time units
P=? [ F≤3 (Protein2 = 1) ]

R. Donaldson & M. Calder

Independent Pathways
Signal Flow Cross-talk
(flow from P2 to P1 )
Substrate Availability Cross-talk
(P1 and P2 compete for a protein)
Receptor Function Cross-talk
(P1 activates P2 ’s receptor)
Gene Expression Cross-talk
(P2 inhibits P1 ’s gene expression)
Intracellular Communication Cross-talk
(P1 expresses P2 ’s ligand)

49
Competitive
Signal Flow (P1 )
0.500

Time-dependent
Signal Flow (P1 )
0.184

Time-dependent
Signal Flow (P2 )
0.18473

0.638

0.304

0.18473

0.500

0.141

0.14125

0.487

0.184

0.19257

0.363

0.147

0.18473

0.500

0.184

0.18477

The competitive signal flow property detects the presence of 3 of the 5 types of cross-talk. The
probability of this property is significantly greater with signal flow cross-talk, due to the extra signal
flow from P2 , and significantly less with gene expression cross-talk, due to inhibition of gene expression
by P2 . There is a decrease in the probability of this property with receptor function cross-talk, however
the decrease is small due to the likelihood that the cross-talk is initiated after P2 ’s receptor becomes
activated. The competitive signal flow property does not detect the substrate availability cross-talk, as
the cross-talk has an identical effect on each pathway. Intracellular communication cross-talk is also not
detected, as the cross-talk occurs after protein1 is expressed (the property does not refer to behaviour
past this point).
To detect substrate availability and intracellular communication cross-talk we need to check the probability of independent signal flow through a pathway (hence, not in relation to another pathway). This
is accomplished by checking the probability of signal flow through a pathway within a time bound, in
this case (arbitrarily) chosen to be 3 time units. Substrate availability cross-talk has the effect of equally
decreasing the time-dependent signal flow through both P1 and P2 due to the competition for a limited
protein. Intracellular communication cross-talk has the effect of increasing only the signal flow through
P2 , however the effect is marginal (5th decimal place). It is interesting to note that in Section 2.1.5 we
identified intracellular communication cross-talk as a source of contention amongst the community and
it proves difficult to detect in our analysis.

4.2 Characterising Cross-talk
We now define 5 CSL properties, each of which characterises a type of cross-talk and thus holds only in
the respective model defined previously. The properties are simple liveness or safety properties and do
not exploit the rate information in the model. These properties could equally be written in Computational
Tree Logic, replacing the probabilistic operator with the universal (A) and existential (E) operators as
appropriate.
Signal Flow Cross-talk (flow from P2 to P1 ) it is possible to activate P1 without activating receptor R1
P>0 [ F(RActive1 = 0 ∧ Protein1 = 1) ]

50

Modelling and Analysis of Biochemical Signalling Pathway Cross-talk

Substrate Availability Cross-talk (P1 and P2 compete for a protein)
both P1 and P2 (i.e. the pathways compete for a limited protein)

it is not possible to activate

P≤0 [ F(Protein1 = 1 ∧ Protein2 = 1) ]

Receptor Function Cross-talk (P1 activates P2 ’s receptor)
without using the ligand L2

it is possible to activate the receptor R2

P>0 [ F(RActive2 = 1 ∧ L2 = 1) ]

Gene Expression Cross-talk (P2 inhibits P1 ’s gene expression)
if the signal has already passed through P2

it is not possible to express protein1

P≤0 [ F(Protein1 = 1) {Protein1 = 0 ∧ Protein2 = 1} ]

Intracellular Communication Cross-talk (P1 expresses P2 ’s ligand) it is possible to use and replenish ligand L2
P>0 [ (L2 = 1) ∧ (L2 = 1) U ( (L2 = 0) ∧ (L2 = 0) U (L2 = 1) ) ]

5

Case Study: TGF-β /BMP, WNT and MAPK pathways

We applied our approach to a prominent biological case study of the cross-talk between the TGF-β /BMP,
WNT and MAPK pathways. Details are taken from [5] and from discussions with a domain expert [14].
We consider the behaviour of the independent pathways and the various types of cross-talk. We note that
the effects of cross-talk are not discussed in [5].
Our model of the pathways and their cross-talk is shown in Figure 5. To apply our module approach
we need to expand our set of modules to: receptor, protein activation, 2-stage cascade, 3-stage cascade,
translocation, protein binding and gene expression. This is a natural extension of our approach, and
the extra modules act in a similar manner to the modules that have been discussed. Using the formal
descriptions of cross-talk (Section 4), we have identified three types of cross-talk in this model.
We measure the output of the TGF-β /BMP pathway by the activity of the expression of Genes to
Proteins. We use the following properties to compare the effects of cross-talk: ψ1 , the eventual expression
of Genes, and ψ2 , the time-dependent expression of Genes (within 5 time units).
ψ1 = P=? [ F(Proteins = 1) ],

ψ2 = P=? [ F≤5 (Proteins = 1) ]

Independent Pathways With independence, the activation of the TGF-β /BMP pathway leads to gene
expression within 5 time units, ψ2 , with probability 0.47 and eventual gene expression, ψ1 , with probability < 1 due to the inactivation of the receptor.
TGF-β /BMP and MAPK Cross-talk There are two types of cross-talk between the TGF-β /BMP and
MAPK pathways. Signal flow: MAPK∗ proteins slow signal flow through the TGF-β /BMP pathway
by deactivating the R-Smads and degrading Smad4. Gene expression: the T F∗ and AKT ∗ proteins
upregulate gene expression in the TGF-β /BMP pathway. Note that the appearance of the AKT and
PI3K proteins in the MAPK pathway indicates an implicit cross-talk with the AKT and PI3K pathways
respectively. The inclusion of cross-talk with the MAPK pathway can both provide alternative gene
expression routes and block the TGF-β /BMP route, overall causing the probability of gene expression
within 5 time units, ψ2 , to marginally decrease to 0.73. The probability of eventual gene expression, ψ1 ,
is 1 due to the consistent routes through the MAPK pathway.

R. Donaldson & M. Calder

51

$%&'#
()!

()*+,-,$&#

*)!

(4!

./(#
*3!

(3!

*4!

!!*4!

29+$H6&!

*)!

G!

*4!

-/0!

G!

*;>?+@'!

G!

G!

G!

G!

.23/!

G!
,-.//!G!
,-./! G!

,-.//!
,-./!

G!

29+$H6&!
*;>?+@'!

:;<+=&989!

G!

G!

>?+@BC!
*;>?+@'!

>?+@B!

!!

!!
>?+@BC!
*;>?+@'!

-/0!G!
01!

!!

>?+@A!

!"#

,-.///!

,-.///!

01!

G!

*;>?+@'!

G!

!!

-789!

-/0!

*+'!

56%!

>?+@A!

.23/!
*+'!

56%!

G!

*3!

G!

G!

:;<+=&989!

"#$%&#'!

G!

!"#
D&9&'!

.EF=&89'!

D&9&(3!

(3!

D&9&(4!

(4!

Figure 5: Cross-talk between the TGF-β /BMP, WNT and MAPK pathways. Species that are present in
the initial state are denoted by shaded ellipses.
TGF-β /BMP and WNT Cross-talk There are three types of cross-talk between the TGF-β /BMP and
WNT pathways. Signal flow: the Smad7∗ protein degrades β -Catenin and the axin protein degrades
Smad72 . Gene expression: the β -Catenin protein upregulates gene expression in the TGF-β /BMP pathway. Intracellular communication: the WNT pathway can cause the production of a ligand for the
TGF-β /BMP pathway, and vice-versa. The inclusion of cross-talk with the WNT pathway can both provide an alternative route to gene expression and inhibit Smad7 which can inactivate the receptor for the
TGF-β /BMP pathway. Overall this causes the probability of gene expression within 5 time units, ψ2 ,
to marginally increase to 0.76. The probability of eventual gene expression, ψ1 , is still < 1 due to the
degradation of the β -Catenin protein.

TGF-β /BMP, WNT and MAPK Cross-talk The cross-talk between all three pathways is the union
of the two cross-talk scenarios above. The effect of both WNT and MAPK cross-talk to the TGF-β /BMP
pathway is additive. The probability of ψ2 has risen to 0.88, compared with the single cross-talks of
WNT and MAPK with probability 0.76 and 0.73 respectively. The inclusion of the MAPK cross-talk
provides consistent routes to gene expression and hence the probability of ψ1 is 1.
2 this

cross-talk is discussed further in Section 6

Modelling and Analysis of Biochemical Signalling Pathway Cross-talk

52

6

Discussion

Categorisation The categorisation of signal flow cross-talk between the WNT and TGF-β /BMP pathways in the previous section may be open to discussion. In Figure 5 Axin degrades Smad7. Rather than
being part of the signal flow from the TGF-β /BMP receptor to gene expression, Smad7 actually deactivates the TGF-β /BMP receptor. One could consider this cross-talk as receptor function cross-talk with
an intermediate (Smad7). Our approach categorises this as signal flow because the set of labels involved
is an catalysis label from a protein module and a degradation label from a protein activation module.
Quantitative Detail We have demonstrated our approach in this paper on models with a low level
of quantitative detail. As such, the probability values resulting from CSL model checking can only
be used to compare between models. However, with more quantitative detail, further interpretation of
our analysis results would be possible. For example, the properties concerning the probability of timedependent gene expression between cross-talk models would become a meaningful assessment of the
strength of the cross-talk.
Feature Interaction There may be an interesting analogy with feature interactions in telecommunications and software systems. Features, or services, in these systems are additional functionality (additional
to the core). They are often added incrementally, by various developers, at various times (e.g. due to
deregulation). A possible consequence is interactions between the new features themselves, or with the
core system, causing some features or the core to behave in new, sometimes undesirable ways. An open
question is whether techniques developed to model and detect features and interactions may be applicable
to pathway cross-talk. Moreover, a common problem is lack of universal definition of pathway/feature;
it would be interesting to investigate if concepts such as the feature construct of [15] would be useful
in the pathway paradigm. We note that many approaches to interaction detection are based on temporal
logic descriptions of behaviour.

7

Related Work

The literature contains a limited number of applications of computational techniques to the study of
signalling pathway cross-talk.
There are several examples whereby a proposed method of cross-talk between two pathways is expressed and analysed as a computational model. For example [16] and [17] use Ordinary Differential
Equations (ODEs) to model the cross-talk between the MAPK pathway with the AKT and PKC pathways respectively. The work in [18] is similar, however the modelling technique used to model the
cross-talk between the growth factor pathway and the Integrin pathway is stochastic networks. Furthermore, a more formal notation of Petri nets has been used in [19] to model the cross-talk between the
pathways involved in Apoptosis decision-making.
The computational analysis of cross-talk models have produced some interesting results in the literature. For example, [7] has produced a model containing substrate availability cross-talk between the
hyperosmolar and the pheromone MAPK pathways. The question the authors try to answer is how these
pathways maintain signal specificity given that they share common proteins. The authors analyse two
models which can account for the signal specificity, one which contains mutual inhibition between pathways to limit signal bleed-through and one which contains scaffold proteins. In [17] the computational
analysis shows that cross-talk has an effect on whether the model exhibits bistability. With pathway

R. Donaldson & M. Calder

53

cross-talk, the behaviour of key proteins switches from transient to sustained activation upon varying the
duration of the signal.
We have found only one paper on the application of formal models to cross-talk, [20], which contains
a model of the multiple modes of cross-talk between the EGFR and LIN-12/Notch signalling pathways.
A discrete, dynamic, state-based model is developed in using the language of Reactive Modules. Model
checking is used to check the validity of the model and to generate “new biological insights into the
regulatory network governing the cell fate”. However, this work differs from ours because it concerns
intercellular cross-talk within a multi-cellular model. The application of the term cross-talk to intercellular communication is often considered a misnomer amongst the community, and hence we have focussed
our analysis to intracellular cross-talk in a single-cell model.

8

Conclusion and Future Work

In this paper we have explored formal modelling and analysis techniques for signalling pathway crosstalk. We note that formal methods, whilst applied frequently in the literature to signalling pathways,
have been largely ignored in the study of cross-talk. The aim of this paper has been to show that formal
methods are both well-suited to and a natural choice for this area.
Our first contribution is a novel categorisation of cross-talk, drawing from examples in the literature.
The second contribution is the definition of a pathway and pathway composition, based on a set
of generic pathway modules with internal and external reactions, and renaming and synchronisation
operations. We can compose pathway independently, or with cross-talk. Furthermore, we also find that
temporal logic descriptions of behaviours are suitable to detect and characterise cross-talk. The approach
is illustrated with example pathways.
The third and final contribution is the application to cross-talk between the TGF-β /BMP pathway
and two other pathways.
Several future directions have been identified. As suggested earlier in the paper, we wish to apply our
approach to models with a higher level of quantitative detail to make predictions and generate insights
about the biological effects of cross-talk. Furthermore, we wish to assess how the effect of cross-talks
differs to that of standard pathway motifs. Hence, is there a reasonable alteration of the pathway model
(e.g. addition of a feedback loop) that gives the same behaviour as a potential cross-talk? We also
wish to assess how the effectiveness of pathway intervention techniques (e.g. drugs, gene knockouts)
changes with the addition of cross-talk. Finally, a larger question is how the temporal ordering of signals
affects the detectability and behaviour of cross-talk (i.e. do the pathways hold a “biochemical history”
of signalling events?).
The PRISM models and CSL properties used in this paper can be found at:
www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~radonald/fbtc2010/.

Acknowledgements
This research is supported by the project The Molecular Nose, funded by the Engineering and Physical
Sciences Research Council (EPSRC). We wish to thank Rainer Breitling for the collaboration on the
development of the case study model.

54

Modelling and Analysis of Biochemical Signalling Pathway Cross-talk

References
[1] Brightman, F., Fell, D.: Differential feedback regulation of the MAPK cascade underlies the quantitative
differences in EGF and NGF signalling in PC12 cells. FEBS Lett 482 (2000) 169–174
[2] Taniguchi, C.M., Emanuelli, B., Kahn, R.C.: Critical nodes in signalling pathways: insights into insulin
action. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 7(2) (February 2006) 85–96
[3] Catt, I.: Crosstalk (Noise) in Digital Systems. Electronic Computers, IEEE Transactions on EC-16(6) (1967)
743–763
[4] Schwartz, M.A., Ginsberg, M.H.: Networks and crosstalk: integrin signalling spreads. Nat Cell Biol 4(4)
(April 2002) E65–E68
[5] Guo, X., Wang, X.F.: Signaling cross-talk between TGF-β /BMP and other pathways. Cell Research 19
(2009) 71–88
[6] NIH: “Insulin Signaling And Receptor Cross-Talk” Program Announcement PA-07-058. November 20, 2006.
[7] McClean, M.N.N., Mody, A., Broach, J.R.R., Ramanathan, S.: Cross-talk and decision making in MAP
kinase pathways. Nat Genet (January 2007)
[8] Katzenellenbogen, B.: Estrogen receptors: bioactivities and interactions with cell signaling pathways. Biol.
Reprod. 54 (1996) 287–293
[9] Bosscher, K.D., Berghe, W.V., Haegeman, G.: Cross-talk between nuclear receptors and nuclear factor κ b.
Oncogene 25 (2006) 6868–6886
[10] Orton, R.J., Sturm, O.E., Vyshemirsky, V., Calder, M., Gilbert, D.R., Kolch, W.: Computational modelling
of the receptor tyrosine kinase activated MAPK pathway. Biochemical Journal 392(2) (2005) 249–261
[11] PRISM Website: PRISM - Probabilistic Symbolic Model Checker. http://www.prismmodelchecker.
org
[12] Calder, M., Vyshemirsky, V., Orton, R., Gilbert, D.: Analysis of Signalling Pathways using Continuous Time
Markov Chains. Trans. on Computat. Syst. Biol. VI 4220 (2006) 44–67
[13] Ciochetta, F., Degasperi, A., Hillston, J., Calder., M.: Some investigations concerning the CTMC and the
ODE model derived from Bio-PEPA. Proceedings of FBTC 2008, ENTCS 17350 (2008)
[14] Breitling, R.: Private correspondence
[15] Plath, M., Ryan, M.: The feature construct for SMV: Semantics. In Calder, M., Magill, E., eds.: Feature
Interactions in Telecommunications and Software Systems VI, IOS Press (Amsterdam) (2000) 129–144
[16] Hatakeyama, M., Kimura, S., Naka, T., Kawasaki, T., Yumoto, N., Ichikawa, M., Kim, J., Saito, K., Saeki, M.,
Shirouzu, M., Yokoyama, S., Konagaya, A.: A computational model on the modulation of mitogen-activated
protein kinase (MAPK) and Akt pathways in heregulin-induced ErbB signalling. Biochemical Journal 373
Pt. 2 (2003) 451–463
[17] Sreenath, S.N., Soebiyanto, R., Mesarovic, M.D., Wolkenhauer, O.: Coordination of crosstalk between
MAPK-PKC pathways: an exploratory study. Systems Biology, IET 1 (2007) 33–40
[18] Bauer, A., Jackson, T., Jiang, Y., Rohlf, T.: Stochastic network model of receptor cross-talk explains proand anti-angiogenic control. under review (2009)
[19] Heiner, M., Koch, I., Will, J.: Model validation of biological pathways using Petri nets–demonstrated for
apoptosis. Journal BioSystems 75 (2004) 15–28
[20] Fisher, J., Piterman, N., Hajnal, A., Henzinger, T.A.: Predictive Modeling of Signaling Crosstalk during C.
elegans Vulval Development. PLoS Computational Biology 3(5) (May 2007) e92+

