STL-based Optimization of Biomolecular Neural Networks for Regression and Control

Calin Belta; Eric Palanques-Tost; Hanna Krasowski; Murat Arcak; Ron Weiss

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 27 references

STL-based Optimization of Biomolecular Neural Networks for Regression and Control

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that biomolecular neural networks can be trained by gradient descent from signal temporal logic specifications alone, with no target data, and demonstrates this on regression and feedback-control tasks.

desk verdict Genuinely new STL-based training for biomolecular neural nets; convincing in silico, but the 'biological' claim rests on an admitted theoretical model. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.05481 v1 pith:LMVXYASM submitted 2025-09-05 cs.LG q-bio.MNq-bio.QM

Eric Palanques-Tost , Hanna Krasowski , Murat Arcak , Ron Weiss , Calin Belta This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.LGq-bio.MNq-bio.QM

keywords signaltemporallogicbiomolecularneuralnetworkssyntheticbiologygradient-basedoptimizationregressionfeedbackcontrolformalspecificationsdynamicalsystems

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tries to establish that a biomolecular neural network, a synthetic gene-circuit analog of a perceptron, can be trained directly from a signal temporal logic (STL) specification, without providing any numerical target trajectories. It builds a fully differentiable pipeline: simulate the BNN's ODEs, evaluate STL robustness against the desired temporal behavior, and back-propagate the robustness loss into the network weights. In three in-silico studies, two regression tasks and one closed-loop controller for chronic inflammation, the trained networks satisfy their specifications on held-out test sets. If correct, the approach removes the main obstacle to programming biological circuits for complex functions, namely the scarcity of target data in molecular biology.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the STL robustness function rho(s, phi), a real-valued score measuring how strongly a trajectory s satisfies a temporal formula phi; rho > 0 means the formula is true, and its magnitude gives a gradient signal. The paper combines three components: the biomolecular perceptron ODEs of Eq. (1), which are asymptotically stable at any depth and provide differentiable forward dynamics; the non-smooth robustness semantics of STL, kept non-smooth so that rho >= 0 corresponds to exact satisfaction; and gradient flow through both the numerical ODE solver and the robustness computation, with parameters optimized in log-space to stay non-negative. Together these make the loss

What would settle it

Implement one of the trained BNNs, such as the p53/Mdm2 reporter, with the learned weights in a synthetic gene circuit and measure its response across the input grid: if the steady-state output does not track max(0, |x_M - x_P| - 0.1) within 0.05, or the closed-loop controller fails to clear bacteria within 15 hours while keeping damage below 150, the central claim fails for real systems.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that a formal specification of desired behavior, expressed in signal temporal logic, is enough to train a biomolecular neural network end-to-end. The training objective, the sum over sampled conditions of the negative part of STL robustness, assigns zero loss to satisfying trajectories and penalty to violating ones, and all gradients flow through the ODE simulation and the robustness computation. The paper reports that the approach solves two regression tasks and one feedback-control task in silico: 7 of 10 training runs converge for static input regression with 100% test satisfaction, 4 of 10 for dynamic input regression with 94% average test satisfaction, and 8 of

Load-bearing premise

The perceptron ODE model in Eq. (1) is faithful enough to an implementable biomolecular circuit that weights trained in simulation will produce the specified behavior in the lab.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

BNN training no longer requires target data; a formal description of the desired behavior suffices.
Temporal constraints can encode biological subtleties, such as ignoring brief imbalances or allowing temporary inflammation during infection, which are awkward to express as numeric losses.
The same end-to-end differentiable pipeline can be applied to other biological systems where the desired behavior is known but target traces are not.
Scaling to larger BNNs is plausible because optimization is gradient-based through automatic differentiation rather than search or model checking.
The closed-loop control result suggests a path to synthetic-biology controllers designed from high-level temporal specifications.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The framework shifts the design bottleneck from data to specification: a behavior that cannot be expressed as an STL formula, or is expressed wrongly, will be trained wrong, so formula design and repair is a natural next step the paper leaves open.
Because the loss gradients flow through all differentiable parameters, the same objective could also tune global biochemical constants such as degradation and inactivation rates (beta, gamma, k) or reporter activation parameters, not just perceptron weights.
The paper's reliance on sampled training conditions suggests a testable extension: active or uncertainty-aware sampling of input trajectories and plant parameters could improve worst-case test-set satisfaction and reduce seed-to-seed variability.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Quick take: this is the first paper I know that trains BNN weights end-to-end from STL robustness, and the three in silico tasks show it can work. The combination is simple but not trivial; the loss in Eq. (2) and the log-space projection are clearly specified, and the test-set evaluation is honest.

What I like: the framework is genuinely target-free, which matters when numerical data is scarce. The dynamic regression example shows the network learns to ignore transient imbalances, and the feedback controller exploits the infection-aware spec to clear bacteria without chronic damage. That is real behavior, not just curve fitting. The authors also state their limitations openly, including sensitivity to initialization.

Soft spots, in order of importance. First, the central "in biological systems" claim outruns the evidence: Eq. (1) is a theoretical model, and Sec. VI concedes BNNs may not behave experimentally as predicted. The stress-test note is right to flag this. At minimum, a stochastic chemical-reaction simulation or a sensitivity analysis around gamma, beta, and k would tighten the loop. Second, the paper ships no code or data, so reproducibility is unverifiable. Third, the empirical reporting flatters the method: 4/10 seeds in dynamic regression, and only successful runs are averaged. We need all-seed numbers and a baseline—e.g., supervised regression on the same tasks, or random search—to know what STL training buys you. These are fixable, not fatal.

Who should read it: researchers building model-based design tools for synthetic biology, and the STL/formal-methods crowd. It is a solid workshop-level contribution that, with code, baselines, and a modestly worded abstract, would become a solid conference or journal paper.

My recommendation: send it to peer review, not desk reject. It deserves referee time, provided the reviewers push on the empirical standards and the abstract's biological reach.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a gradient-based method for training Biomolecular Neural Networks (BNNs) using Signal Temporal Logic (STL) robustness as the loss function. The BNN dynamics are taken from a prior ODE perceptron model, and the optimization pipeline is end-to-end differentiable through the ODE solver and the STL robustness computation. The authors formulate two general problems—regression and feedback control—and demonstrate the method on three in silico case studies: static-input regression for detecting p53/Mdm2 dysregulation, dynamic-input regression for tracking a time-varying dysregulation signal, and closed-loop feedback control of a chronic inflammation model. The reported results show high test-set STL satisfaction on the runs that converge, but with notable seed-to-seed variability.

Significance. If the results hold, the framework would be a useful step toward training biomolecular circuits from temporal specifications alone, without requiring hand-labeled target trajectories. The paper's strengths include a clear, differentiable loss formulation (Eq. 2), a concrete algorithm (Alg. 1), an explicit separation of training and test sets, and three nontrivial case studies that go beyond simple static circuits. The authors also report multi-seed statistics, which is good practice. However, the significance is currently limited by the purely in silico nature of the evaluation, the lack of baselines or ablation studies, and the fact that the regression specifications encode the exact target function in the STL formula.

major comments (4)

[V-A, V-B] The regression specifications contain the exact target function r(xM,xP)=max(0,|xM−xP|−0.1) inside the STL predicate. For static regression, φ1 requires |g−r(xM,xP)|<0.1 and then <0.05; for dynamic regression, φ2 requires |y−r(xP,xM)|<0.1. Thus the 'lack of target data' motivation is weakened: the target function is supplied explicitly in the formula, making these tasks equivalent to supervised regression with a known target. I recommend either demonstrating a case where the desired behavior cannot be expressed as a closed-form target function, or rephrasing the claim to acknowledge that the STL specification is a structured way to encode the target.
[Table I, V-B] The success criterion for dynamic regression is met by only 4/10 seeds, yet the abstract states that the tasks are solved 'efficiently.' Reporting only successful runs obscures a 60% failure rate. Please report the distribution over all seeds (e.g., median and worst-case test satisfaction), and discuss the failure modes. In addition, the paper provides no baseline comparing the STL loss to a standard supervised loss with the same target data, nor an ablation replacing the STL loss by, for example, a simple L2 error on r(xM,xP). Without such a baseline, it is difficult to assess what the STL formulation contributes beyond gradient-based supervised training.
[V-C] The closed-loop control experiment is not reproducible as written because the plant model is only described as 'adapted from [26]' and the governing ODEs are not given. The reader cannot verify the dynamics of X_B, X_P, X_A, X_D, or the meaning of the parameter p and infection protocol. Please include the model equations, parameters, and the exact initialization/perturbation procedure. Adding a code/data availability statement would also substantially improve reproducibility.
[VI] The paper's own limitation statement concedes that 'the model of BNNs is theoretical, so BNNs may not behave experimentally as predicted by the model.' Given that the abstract and introduction claim the method enables regression and control 'in biological systems,' the central claim is only established for the idealized ODE model. To support the broader claim, the authors should either temper the scope (e.g., 'in silico models of biological systems') or provide additional evidence of transferability, such as a sensitivity analysis with respect to the fixed parameters (γ, β, k), stochastic simulations, or a comparison against a higher-fidelity biochemical model.

minor comments (4)

[II-C] The temporal operators are defined over discrete time points k1,k2, but formulas such as ◻[0,∞] are used on finite traces (e.g., φ1 and φ2). The semantics of unbounded intervals over finite time series should be clarified.
[IV-C, Eq. (2)] The loss uses max(0,−ρ); when ρ is exactly 0 the loss is 0, but in floating-point arithmetic a numerically zero robustness may lead to premature stopping. Please state the termination tolerance or note that the break condition (Alg. 1, line 6) requires L=0 exactly.
[V-A] The reporter output model ˙g=α·(y/(k+y))−δg is introduced without justification for the parameter values α=5, k=0.8, δ=1. It would be helpful to cite a source or explain the biological plausibility.
[Fig. 3] The two panels are described in the text but the caption does not indicate which panel corresponds to which scenario. Please add explicit panel labels.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the STL robustness objective is the specification, training and test sets are separated, and self-citations supply architecture/context rather than forced conclusions.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. The BNN dynamics in Eq. (1) are taken from prior work [9], but that is an architectural input, not the paper's claimed result, and the cited model is externally published rather than an unverified uniqueness theorem. The STL robustness semantics from [14], [19] are standard, and the loss in Eq. (2) directly minimizes negative robustness of the given specification. In the regression examples, the STL formulas φ1 and φ2 include the target function r(x_M,x_P), but this target is part of the specification itself, not a parameter fitted to the test data; the paper then evaluates satisfaction on a shifted, held-out grid, which is standard empirical generalization. In the feedback control example, φ3 encodes the desired closed-loop behavior, and training/test conditions are sampled separately; the reported 99% test satisfaction is a generalization result, not a forced consequence of the training loss. The self-citations [9] and [17] provide the BNN model and prior STL-gradient methodology, but the demonstrated optimization results do not reduce to a fitted constant or a self-referential definition. The Sec. VI caveat that the BNN model is theoretical and may not transfer to experiments is a correctness/transferability limitation, not a circularity. Therefore the central claim—that STL-based gradient optimization can train BNNs in silico for regression and control—is self-contained and independently evaluated within the stated model.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method is a training procedure, so the main upstream assumptions are model fidelity, finite-sample representativeness, and differentiability of the STL robustness through simulation. The BNN and plant ODE constants are chosen, not derived. The learned BNN weights are outputs of the optimization, not assumptions, so they are omitted from this ledger.

free parameters (3)

Global BNN constants gamma, beta, k = gamma=1000, beta=1.0, k=0.8
Hand-set in Sec. V for all experiments; they define perceptron degradation, mutual inactivation, and saturation, so they determine what STL behaviors are achievable.
Reporter output model constants alpha, delta, k = alpha=5, delta=1, k=0.8
Chosen in Sec. V-A for the static regression fluorescent protein model dg/dt = alpha*y/(k+y) - delta*g; these constants shape the reporter trajectory and are not derived or fit.
Training hyperparameters (learning rates, iterations, sample sizes, successful-run threshold) = lr 0.05/0.05/5e-3; max iterations 3000/400/200; C=121/150/400; success threshold >=90% training satisfaction
Reported in Sec. V; convergence and reported test satisfaction depend on these hand-chosen values, and the authors note sensitivity to initialization.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The BNN perceptron ODE model in Eq. (1) is a valid, asymptotically stable model of an implementable biomolecular perceptron.
The whole optimization trains parameters of this ODE model. If the model is not faithful, in silico results do not transfer. The authors call the model theoretical in Sec. VI.
standard math The STL robustness function used is differentiable with respect to BNN parameters through automatic differentiation.
The paper uses the non-smooth robustness from [14, Eq. (2)] and notes in Sec. VI that discontinuities limit convergence, so this is an assumption about usable gradients.
domain assumption The p53/Mdm2 two-protein system and the chronic inflammation model are representative of the biological systems they stand for.
The STL specifications are defined over these models. If the models are wrong, satisfying the formulas does not imply biological health, infection clearing, or correct reporter behavior.
domain assumption Finite training samples drawn from chosen ranges generalize to the test and biological distributions.
No generalization guarantee is provided; the authors state in Sec. VI that evaluation is purely empirical.
standard math Numerical integration with the Kverno5 solver and linear interpolation accurately represents the continuous-time trajectories.
Loss and gradients are computed on discrete time points; solver tolerances are not reported, so integration error could affect the robustness values.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of STL-based Optimization of Biomolecular Neural Networks for Regression and Control." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LMVXYASM

@misc{pith2026250905481,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: STL-based Optimization of Biomolecular Neural Networks for Regression and Control},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LMVXYASM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.05481}
}

read the original abstract

Biomolecular Neural Networks (BNNs), artificial neural networks with biologically synthesizable architectures, achieve universal function approximation capabilities beyond simple biological circuits. However, training BNNs remains challenging due to the lack of target data. To address this, we propose leveraging Signal Temporal Logic (STL) specifications to define training objectives for BNNs. We build on the quantitative semantics of STL, enabling gradient-based optimization of the BNN weights, and introduce a learning algorithm that enables BNNs to perform regression and control tasks in biological systems. Specifically, we investigate two regression problems in which we train BNNs to act as reporters of dysregulated states, and a feedback control problem in which we train the BNN in closed-loop with a chronic disease model, learning to reduce inflammation while avoiding adverse responses to external infections. Our numerical experiments demonstrate that STL-based learning can solve the investigated regression and control tasks efficiently.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.05481 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** A BNN is built from biological perceptrons implemented with synthetic genetic circuits. A possible genetic circuit implementing a BNN perceptron [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Results of the static-input regression experiment. (a) Heatmap of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Time-series generated in the dynamic-input regression experiment. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Results of the optimization of the controller. Left: Diagram of the interactions in the biological model with triangle arrowheads for activation and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages

[26]

Predicting experimental sepsis survival with a mathematical model of acute inflammation,

J. Barber, A. Carpenter, A. Torsey, T. Borgard, R. A. Namas, Y . V odovotz, and J. Arciero, “Predicting experimental sepsis survival with a mathematical model of acute inflammation,”Frontiers in Systems Biology, vol. 1, Nov. 2021

work page 2021
[1]

Synthetic biology 2020–2030: Six commercially avail- able products that are changing our world,

C. A. V oigt, “Synthetic biology 2020–2030: Six commercially avail- able products that are changing our world,”Nature Communications, vol. 11, no. 1, 2020

work page 2020
[2]

Construction of a genetic toggle switch in escherichia coli,

T. S. Gardner, C. R. Cantor, and J. J. Collins, “Construction of a genetic toggle switch in escherichia coli,”Nature, vol. 403, no. 6767, pp. 339–342, 2000

work page 2000
[3]

A synthetic oscillatory network of transcriptional regulators,

M. B. Elowitz and S. Leibler, “A synthetic oscillatory network of transcriptional regulators,”Nature, vol. 403, no. 6767, pp. 335–338, 2000

work page 2000
[4]

Construction of an escherichia coli strain to degrade phenol completely with two modified metabolic modules,

B. Wang, J. Xu, J. Gao, X. Fu, H. Han, Z. Li, L. Wang, Y . Tian, R. Peng, and Q. Yao, “Construction of an escherichia coli strain to degrade phenol completely with two modified metabolic modules,” Journal of Hazardous Materials, vol. 373, pp. 29–38, 2019

work page 2019
[5]

An introduction to chimeric antigen receptor (car) t-cell immunother- apy for human cancer,

S. Feins, W. Kong, E. F. Williams, M. C. Milone, and J. A. Fraietta, “An introduction to chimeric antigen receptor (car) t-cell immunother- apy for human cancer,”American Journal of Hematology, vol. 94, no. S1, 2019

work page 2019
[6]

A universal biomolecular integral feedback controller for robust perfect adaptation,

S. K. Aoki, G. Lillacci, A. Gupta, A. Baumschlager, D. Schweingruber, and M. Khammash, “A universal biomolecular integral feedback controller for robust perfect adaptation,”Nature, vol. 570, no. 7762, pp. 533–537, 2019

work page 2019
[7]

Neural network computation with dna strand displacement cascades,

L. Qian, E. Winfree, and J. Bruck, “Neural network computation with dna strand displacement cascades,”Nature, vol. 475, no. 7356, pp. 368–372, 2011

work page 2011

Show all 27 references

[8]

Programming molecular systems to emulate a learning spiking neuron,

J. Fil, N. Dalchau, and D. Chu, “Programming molecular systems to emulate a learning spiking neuron,”ACS Synthetic Biology, vol. 11, no. 6, pp. 2055–2069, 2022
[9]

A dynamical biomolecular neural network,

A. Moorman, C. C. Samaniego, C. Maley, and R. Weiss, “A dynamical biomolecular neural network,” inIEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), 2019, pp. 1797–1802

2019
[10]

Development of a neuron model based on dnazyme regulation,

C. Chen, R. Wu, and B. Wang, “Development of a neuron model based on dnazyme regulation,”RSC Advances, vol. 11, no. 17, pp. 9985–9994, 2021

2021
[11]

Signaling-based neural networks for cellular computation,

C. C. Samaniego, A. Moorman, G. Giordano, and E. Franco, “Signaling-based neural networks for cellular computation,” inAmer- ican Control Conference (ACC), 2021, pp. 1883–1890

2021
[12]

Interpretable policies from formally-specified temporal properties,

J. DeCastro, K. Leung, N. Ar ´echiga, and M. Pavone, “Interpretable policies from formally-specified temporal properties,” inIEEE Interna- tional Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC), 2020, pp. 1–7

2020
[13]

Control from signal temporal logic specifications with smooth cumulative quantitative semantics,

I. Haghighi, N. Mehdipour, E. Bartocci, and C. Belta, “Control from signal temporal logic specifications with smooth cumulative quantitative semantics,” inIEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), 2019, pp. 4361–4366

2019
[14]

Backpropagation through signal temporal logic specifications: Infusing logical structure into gradient-based methods,

K. Leung, N. Ar ´echiga, and M. Pavone, “Backpropagation through signal temporal logic specifications: Infusing logical structure into gradient-based methods,”The International Journal of Robotics Re- search, vol. 42, no. 6, pp. 356–370, 2023

2023
[15]

Temporal logic based synthesis of experimentally constrained interaction networks,

J. Goldfeder and H. Kugler, “Temporal logic based synthesis of experimentally constrained interaction networks,” inMolecular Logic and Computational Synthetic Biology, 2019, pp. 89–104

2019
[16]

On the use of temporal formal logic to model gene regulatory networks,

G. Bernot and J.-P. Comet, “On the use of temporal formal logic to model gene regulatory networks,” inComputational Intelligence Methods for Bioinformatics and Biostatistics, 2010, pp. 112–138

2010
[17]

Learning biomolecular models using signal temporal logic,

H. Krasowski, E. Palanques-Tost, C. Belta, and M. Arcak, “Learning biomolecular models using signal temporal logic,” inLearning for Dynamics and Control Conference (L4DC), 2025, pp. 1365–1377

2025
[18]

Monitoring temporal properties of con- tinuous signals,

O. Maler and D. Nickovic, “Monitoring temporal properties of con- tinuous signals,” inInternational Symposium on Formal Techniques in Real-Time and Fault-Tolerant Systems, 2004, pp. 152–166

2004
[19]

Robust satisfaction of temporal logic over real-valued signals,

A. Donz ´e and O. Maler, “Robust satisfaction of temporal logic over real-valued signals,” inInternational Conference on Formal Modeling and Analysis of Timed Systems, 2010, pp. 92–106

2010
[20]

Adabelief optimizer: Adapting stepsizes by the belief in observed gradients,

J. Zhuang, T. Tang, Y . Ding, S. C. Tatikonda, N. Dvornek, X. Pa- pademetris, and J. Duncan, “Adabelief optimizer: Adapting stepsizes by the belief in observed gradients,” inAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 2020, pp. 18 795–18 806

2020
[21]

Neural ordinary differential equations,

R. T. Q. Chen, Y . Rubanova, J. Bettencourt, and D. K. Duvenaud, “Neural ordinary differential equations,” inAdvances in Neural Infor- mation Processing Systems (NeurIPS), vol. 31, 2018

2018
[22]

Jax: Composable transformations of python+numpy programs,

J. Bradbury, R. Frostig, P. Hawkins, M. J. Johnson, C. Leary, D. Maclaurin, G. Necula, A. Paszke, J. VanderPlas, S. Wanderman-Milne, and Q. Zhang, “Jax: Composable transformations of python+numpy programs,” 2018. [Online]. Available: https://github.com/jax-ml/jax

2018
[23]

On neural differential equations,

P. Kidger, “On neural differential equations,” Ph.D. dissertation, Uni- versity of Oxford, 2021

2021
[24]

Understanding the difficulty of training deep feedforward neural networks,

X. Glorot and Y . Bengio, “Understanding the difficulty of training deep feedforward neural networks,” inProceedings of the Thirteenth Inter- national Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, vol. 9, 2010, pp. 249–256

2010
[25]

Singly diagonally implicit runge–kutta methods with an explicit first stage,

A. Kværnø, “Singly diagonally implicit runge–kutta methods with an explicit first stage,”BIT Numerical Mathematics, vol. 44, no. 3, pp. 489–502, 2004

2004
[27]

Safe control under uncertainty,

D. Sadigh and A. Kapoor, “Safe control under uncertainty,” 2015. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1510.07313

2015 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [26]

Predicting experimental sepsis survival with a mathematical model of acute inflammation,

J. Barber, A. Carpenter, A. Torsey, T. Borgard, R. A. Namas, Y . V odovotz, and J. Arciero, “Predicting experimental sepsis survival with a mathematical model of acute inflammation,”Frontiers in Systems Biology, vol. 1, Nov. 2021

work page 2021

[2] [1]

Synthetic biology 2020–2030: Six commercially avail- able products that are changing our world,

C. A. V oigt, “Synthetic biology 2020–2030: Six commercially avail- able products that are changing our world,”Nature Communications, vol. 11, no. 1, 2020

work page 2020

[3] [2]

Construction of a genetic toggle switch in escherichia coli,

T. S. Gardner, C. R. Cantor, and J. J. Collins, “Construction of a genetic toggle switch in escherichia coli,”Nature, vol. 403, no. 6767, pp. 339–342, 2000

work page 2000

[4] [3]

A synthetic oscillatory network of transcriptional regulators,

M. B. Elowitz and S. Leibler, “A synthetic oscillatory network of transcriptional regulators,”Nature, vol. 403, no. 6767, pp. 335–338, 2000

work page 2000

[5] [4]

Construction of an escherichia coli strain to degrade phenol completely with two modified metabolic modules,

B. Wang, J. Xu, J. Gao, X. Fu, H. Han, Z. Li, L. Wang, Y . Tian, R. Peng, and Q. Yao, “Construction of an escherichia coli strain to degrade phenol completely with two modified metabolic modules,” Journal of Hazardous Materials, vol. 373, pp. 29–38, 2019

work page 2019

[6] [5]

An introduction to chimeric antigen receptor (car) t-cell immunother- apy for human cancer,

S. Feins, W. Kong, E. F. Williams, M. C. Milone, and J. A. Fraietta, “An introduction to chimeric antigen receptor (car) t-cell immunother- apy for human cancer,”American Journal of Hematology, vol. 94, no. S1, 2019

work page 2019

[7] [6]

A universal biomolecular integral feedback controller for robust perfect adaptation,

S. K. Aoki, G. Lillacci, A. Gupta, A. Baumschlager, D. Schweingruber, and M. Khammash, “A universal biomolecular integral feedback controller for robust perfect adaptation,”Nature, vol. 570, no. 7762, pp. 533–537, 2019

work page 2019

[8] [7]

Neural network computation with dna strand displacement cascades,

L. Qian, E. Winfree, and J. Bruck, “Neural network computation with dna strand displacement cascades,”Nature, vol. 475, no. 7356, pp. 368–372, 2011

work page 2011