Two wrongs do not make a right: the assumption that an inhibitor acts as an inverse activator.

Models of biochemical networks are often large intractable sets of differential equations. To make sense of the complexity, relationships between genes/proteins are presented as connected graphs, the edges of which are drawn to indicate activation or inhibition relationships. These diagrams are useful for drawing qualitative conclusions in many cases by the identifying recurring of topological motifs, for example positive and negative feedback loops. These topological features are usually classified under the presumption that activation and inhibition are inverse relationships. For example, inhibition of an inhibitor is often classified the same as activation of an activator within a motif classification, effectively treating them as equivalent. Whilst in many contexts this may not lead to catastrophic errors, drawing conclusions about the behavior of motifs, pathways or networks from these broad classes of topological feature without adequate mathematical descriptions can lead to obverse outcomes. We investigate the extent to which a biochemical pathway/network will behave quantitatively dissimilar to pathway/ networks with similar typologies formed by swapping inhibitors as the inverse of activators. The purpose of the study is to determine under what circumstances rudimentary qualitative assessment of network structure can provide reliable conclusions as to the quantitative behaviour of the network. Whilst there are others, We focus on two main mathematical qualities which may cause a divergence in the behaviour of two pathways/networks which would otherwise be classified as similar; (i) a modelling feature we label 'bias' and (ii) the precise positioning of activators and inhibitors within simple pathways/motifs.