1,436 research outputs found

    Linyphia bilobata Roy & al., 2015, is a junior synonym of Chrysso scintillans (Thorell, 1895) (Araneae: Linyphiidae, Theridiidae)

    No full text
    Breitling, Rainer (2015): Linyphia bilobata ROY & al., 2015, is a junior synonym of Chrysso scintillans (THORELL, 1895) (Araneae: Linyphiidae, Theridiidae). Contributions to Natural History 30: 1-7, DOI: 10.5169/seals-78707

    Alopecosa trabalis

    No full text
    Alopecosa trabalis (Clerck, 1757) Araneus trabalis Clerck, 1757: 97, pl. 4, tab. 9. Aranea obscura Olivier, 1789: 218. Aranea vorax Walckenaer, 1802: 238. Aranea agilis Walckenaer, 1802: 238. Lycosa accentuata Latreille, 1817: 294 (n. syn.).Published as part of Breitling, Rainer & Bauer, Tobias, 2022, What, if anything, is Lycosa accentuata Latreille, 1817? - Review of a nomenclatural conundrum (Araneae: Lycosidae), pp. 197-207 in Zoosystema 44 (8) on page 201, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2022v44a8, http://zenodo.org/record/646768

    FIG. 1 in What, if anything, is Lycosa accentuata Latreille, 1817? - Review of a nomenclatural conundrum (Araneae: Lycosidae)

    No full text
    FIG. 1. — Schematic timeline of the different interpretations of Latreille's Lycosa accentuata Latreille, 1817. The names on the right are the most closely matching currently valid taxa, and the years refer to the major taxonomic publications detailed and discussed in Table 1. It is clear that the recent inversion of preceding usage, as proposed by Canard & Cruveillier (2019), contradicts all previous interpretations of the name. This figure should be read in conjunction with the detailed information in Table 1.Published as part of Breitling, Rainer & Bauer, Tobias, 2022, What, if anything, is Lycosa accentuata Latreille, 1817? - Review of a nomenclatural conundrum (Araneae: Lycosidae), pp. 197-207 in Zoosystema 44 (8) on page 199, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2022v44a8, http://zenodo.org/record/646768

    BioModel Engineering: Its role in Systems Biology and Synthetic Biology

    No full text
    BioModel Engineering takes place at the interface of computing science, mathematics, engineering and biology, and provides a systematic approach for designing, constructing and analyzing computational models of biological systems. Some of its central concepts are inspired by efficient software engineering strategies. BioModel Engineering does not aim at engineering biological systems per se, but rather aims at describing their structure and behavior, in particular at the level of intracellular molecular processes, using computational tools and techniques in a principled way. The two major application areas of BioModel Engineering are systems biology and synthetic biology. In the former, the aim is the design and construction of models of existing biological systems, which explain observed properties and predict the response to experimental interventions; in the latter, BioModel Engineering is used as part of a general strategy for designing and constructing synthetic biological systems with novel functionalities. The overall steps in building computational models in a BioModel Engineering framework are: Problem Identification, Model Construction, Static and Dynamic Analysis, Simulation, and Model management and development. A major theme in BioModel Engineering is that of constructing a (qualitative) model means (1) finding the structure, (2) obtaining an initial state and (3) parameter fitting. In an approach that we have taken, the structure is obtained by piecewise construction of models from modular parts, the initial state which describes concentrations of species or numbers of molecules is obtained by analysis of the structure, and parameter fitting comprises determining the rate parameters of the kinetic equations by reference to trusted data. Model checking can play a key role in BioModel Engineering – for example in recent work we have shown how parameter estimation can be achieved by characterising the desired behaviour of a model with a temporal logic property and altering the model to make it conform to the property as determined through model checking

    The latent process decomposition of cDNA microarray data sets

    No full text
    We present a new computational technique (a software implementation, data sets, and supplementary information are available at http://www.enm.bris.ac.uk/lpd/) which enables the probabilistic analysis of cDNA microarray data and we demonstrate its effectiveness in identifying features of biomedical importance. A hierarchical Bayesian model, called latent process decomposition (LPD), is introduced in which each sample in the data set is represented as a combinatorial mixture over a finite set of latent processes, which are expected to correspond to biological processes. Parameters in the model are estimated using efficient variational methods. This type of probabilistic model is most appropriate for the interpretation of measurement data generated by cDNA microarray technology. For determining informative substructure in such data sets, the proposed model has several important advantages over the standard use of dendrograms. First, the ability to objectively assess the optimal number of sample clusters. Second, the ability to represent samples and gene expression levels using a common set of latent variables (dendrograms cluster samples and gene expression values separately which amounts to two distinct reduced space representations). Third, in contrast to standard cluster models, observations are not assigned to a single cluster and, thus, for example, gene expression levels are modeled via combinations of the latent processes identified by the algorithm. We show this new method compares favorably with alternative cluster analysis methods. To illustrate its potential, we apply the proposed technique to several microarray data sets for cancer. For these data sets it successfully decomposes the data into known subtypes and indicates possible further taxonomic subdivision in addition to highlighting, in a wholly unsupervised manner, the importance of certain genes which are known to be medically significant. To illustrate its wider applicability, we also illustrate its performance on a microarray data set for yeast

    Formal Methods in Molecular Biology (Dagstuhl Seminar 11151)

    No full text
    This report documents the program and the outcomes of the Seminar 11151 `Formal Methods in Molecular Biology' that took place in Dagstuhl, Germany, on 10--15 Apr 2011. The most recent advances in Systems Biology were discussed, as well as and the contribution of computational formalisms to the modeling of biological systems, with the focus on stochasticity. About 30 talks were given. The participants formed 5 teams that worked on selected case studies. Two teams were awarded prizes, for their efforts in analyzing and further elucidating published biological models

    09091 Abstracts Collection – Formal Methods in Molecular Biology

    No full text
    From 23. February to 27. February 2009, the Dagstuhl Seminar 09091 ``Formal Methods in Molecular Biology '' was held in Schloss Dagstuhl~--~Leibniz Center for Informatics. During the seminar, several participants presented their current research, and ongoing work and open problems were discussed. Abstracts of the presentations given during the seminar as well as abstracts of seminar results and ideas are put together in this paper. The first section describes the seminar topics and goals in general. Links to extended abstracts or full papers are provided, if available

    09091 Executive Summary – Formal Methods in Molecular Biology

    No full text
    Formal logical models play an increasing role in the newly emerging field of Systems Biology. Compared to the classical, well-established approach of modeling biological processes using continuous and stochastic differential equations, formal logical models offer a number of important advantages. Many different formal modeling paradigms have been applied to molecular biology, each with its own community, formalisms and tools. In this seminar we brought together modelers from various backgrounds to stimulate closer interaction within the field and to create a common platform for discussion. A central feature of the seminar was a modeling competition (with a highly collaborative flavor) of various modeling paradigms
    corecore