among the agents was summarized from the well-documented gene
regulatory network and signaling transduction pathway that sug-
gest that the interactions have a solid biochemical basis
[46, 47]. We assume that the agents and interactions among the
agents form autonomous and decision-making network, which
suggests that the transmission of information is not one way and
there is no privileged causality in the network. To emphasize the
network is formed by the interactions of the endogenous cellular-
molecular agents shaped by evolution, we name the network as an
endogenous molecular-cellular network. The aim to establish a liver
endogenous network is to reveal the core regulatory mechanisms of
liver at the systemic level. Working endogenous network of HCC
has been established according to the hypothesis (Fig.1). As the
key molecular-cellular agents to regulate functional modules status
and their interactions have been documented and proved to be
conserved, it seems that the working endogenous network is repro-
ducible according to the hypothesis.
It is necessary to discuss the gaps between the working endog-
enous network of the liver and the real liver. There is no doubt that
the real liver has been greatly simplified with these assumptions
above. For example, the functional modules are far more than the
selected modules here; other molecular-cellular agents such as
microRNA, metabolites, and other proteins are not considered
explicitly in the network. Thus, the simplified and incomplete
working endogenous network is by no means the only realization,
and is open to further expansion and revision. However, we will
show later that it is one of the simplest variants which may repro-
duce the main features of normal liver tissue and HCC tissue at
both the modular and molecular levels. Moreover, we will show
that solid predications can be reached by careful analysis even in this
case of partial knowledge.
2.3 Quantification
of Endogenous
Network
The quantitative description of the core endogenous molecular-
cellular network consists of a set of coupled differential equations
[48, 49]. In Fig.1, we use CyclinD-CDK4/6 as an example to show
how to obtain the differentiation equations. Cyclin D-CDK4/6 was
upregulated by transcription factor E2F and Myc, while it was down-
regulatedbyC/EBPα,p21,andGSK-3β. First, we assume the
dynamical equation for the concentration or activity of CyclinD-
CDK4/6 under the influence of the protein E2F, Myc, C/EBPα,
p21, and GSK-3βtakes the form in Eq.1 [48–51]:
dCyclinD‐CDK4= 6 ðÞt
dt
¼fðÞE2F;Myc;C=EBPα;p21;GSK‐ 3 β
CyclinD‐CDK4= 6
τcyclinD‐CDK4= 6
ð 1 Þ
222 Gaowei Wang et al.