BASiNETEntropy: an alignment-free method for classification of biological sequences through complex networks and entropy maximization

Abstract: The discovery of nucleic acids and the structure of DNA have brought considerable advances in the understanding of life. The development of next-generation sequencing technologies has led to a large-scale generation of data, for which computational methods have become essential for analysis and knowledge discovery. In particular, RNAs have received much attention because of the diversity of their functionalities in the organism and the discoveries of different classes with different functions in many biological processes. Therefore, the correct identification of RNA sequences is increasingly important to provide relevant information to understand the functioning of organisms. This work addresses this context by presenting a new method for the classification of biological sequences through complex networks and entropy maximization. The maximum entropy principle is proposed to identify the most informative edges about the RNA class, generating a filtered complex network. The proposed method was evaluated in the classification of different RNA classes from 13 species. The proposed method was compared to PLEK, CPC2 and BASiNET methods, outperforming all compared methods. BASiNETEntropy classified all RNA sequences with high accuracy and low standard deviation in results, showing assertiveness and robustness. The proposed method is implemented in an open source in R language and is freely available atthis https URL.

\section{Introduction}%
\label{sect:introduction}

In the 19th century, the Swiss biochemist Friedrich Miescher (1844-1895) isolated an acid containing phosphorus and nitrogen from a cell. Twenty years after his discovery, Richard Altmann named this compound nucleic acid, as we know it today \cite{DAHM2005274}. Because of these scientific advances, in 1953, James D. Watson and Francis H. Crick published ``A Structure for Deoxyribose Nucleic Acid'' \cite{FEUGHELMAN1955}, the first mention of DNA structure in the scientific field, and it would be one of the most important contributions to biology.

Because of its indispensable participation in the creation and maintenance of life, nucleic acids have gained space and notoriety in various fields of knowledge, such as in computer science, since the amount of information present in the agglomerates of these particles is enormous, which makes it impractical to analyze manually. Since Phage-X174 was sequenced in 1977, a huge amount of organisms have been sequenced and stored in databases. In this context, the need for a computer application in biology created a new term, Bioinformatics \cite{hogeweg_roots_2011}, aiming to define the study of computational processes in biotic systems. Since then, bioinformatics methods have become essential for analysis of biological data \cite{posada2009bioinformatics}. Nowadays, computer programs such as NCBI BLAST are routinely used to perform a comparative analysis of biological sequences over 9.9 trillion base pairs and 2.1 billion nucleotide sequences \cite{GenBank2020}.

Regarding genetics and genomics, bioinformatics methods are mainly involved in the sequencing and annotation of an organism’s DNA assemblies, and their observed mutations \cite{hagen_origins_2000,lander_initial_2011,hogeweg_roots_2011}. DNA is composed by nucleic acids that stores genetic information by combining four types of nitrogenous bases (adenine (A), thymine (T), guanine (G) and cytosine (C)), which will form distinct DNA molecules according to the structural organization of its bases. The information in the genome largely defines the functionality that a gene exerts in the organism \cite{Varki}, hereditary characteristics are also passed on through the genome \cite{Wolf}.

On the other hand, RNA is the other type of nucleic acid composed of four different nucleotide subunits joined by phosphodiester bonds, and one of its functions is to serve as a template for proteins production (translation). RNA sequences are analysed to determine which genes code proteins and also to compare genes within a species or between different species, which can show similarities in protein functions or relationships between species. There are several classes of RNA, such as messenger RNAs (mRNAs) that are protein-coding, ribosomal RNAs (rRNA), transporter RNAs (tRNAs), non-coding RNAs (ncRNAs) among others\cite{alberts2017molecular}.
In particular, the ncRNA recently received much attention because of its functionalities and diversity, such as small non-coding (sncRNA) and long non-coding (lncRNA) and their respective subclasses \cite{amin2019evaluation}.

Long non-coding RNAs (lncRNAs) are emerging as an important component in the cancer context, indicating potential roles in oncogenic and tumour suppressor pathways \cite{Gib}. Small non-coding RNAs (sncRNAs) are part of non-coding regulatory oligo-nucleotides with broad physiological and morphological functions. They control the genetic programming of cells and can modulate differentiation and death processes\cite{KLIMENKO201788}.

In fact, the ncRNAs are still little known, however it is already possible to point out important functionalities in many biological processes, transcriptional regulation of gene expression, mediate epigenetic modifications of DNA and also their relationships in cancer and other human diseases, such as neurological, cardiovascular and autoimmune disorders \cite{Esteller2011, Rinn2012, dai2020rna}.

Therefore, the correct identification of RNA classes between mRNA, lncRNA and sncRNA from unknown biological sequences may contribute to a better understanding of their functionalities and mechanisms. This work addresses this context by presenting a new method for the classification of biological sequences through complex networks and entropy maximization.

\section{Biological Background}
\label{sec:biological}

The central dogma of molecular biology reveals the structure of DNA and explains the flow of genetic information, from DNA to RNA, to make a functional product, a protein \cite{crick1970central}. Thus, the information in DNA is transcribed to synthesise RNA molecules. RNAs that encode proteins are defined as messenger RNA (mRNA) and are widely studied given their protein-coding function. On the other hand, about 1.5\% of the human genome is transcribed into mRNA, thus a great part of the transcriptome does not possess the ability to code proteins, which are defined as non-coding RNA (ncRNA) \cite{zheng_systematic_2021}. In generality, non-coding RNA can be classified given the size of the transcript, being classified into small ($<$ 200 nucleotides) (sncRNA) and long ($>$ 200 nucleotides) (lncRNA) \cite{qin_structure_2020}. Figure \ref{fig:dogma} presents an overview of the expanded central dogma of molecular biology.
\begin{figure}[!h]
\centering%
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{fig1-dogma.pdf}
\caption{Expanded central dogma of molecular biology.}%
\label{fig:dogma}
\end{figure}

A large proportion of non-coding RNA is present in the nucleus of cells, when compared with mRNA. In particular, a large proportion of lncRNA are transcribed from RNA polymerase II, showing a transcription mechanism similar to the mRNA \cite{statello_gene_2021}. Unlike lncRNA, sncRNAs are generated at various stages of transcription, and may be a product of the separation of introns, in the generation of inhibitors and other stages of transcription \cite{Romano2017}.

sncRNA act in many developmental processes, including cell maintenance, development and differentiation, transcriptional and post-transcriptional gene silencing \cite{ncRNA2010}. The dysregulation of some sncRNA is associated with several diseases such as cancer, neurological and cardiac diseases among others \cite{Esteller2011, Chen2016}, thus sncRNAs are used as biomarkers for the detection of some of these diseases \cite{Romano2017}.

The function of lncRNAs can be classified into three major groups based on their localization in the cell, being a regulation of chromatin states and gene expression, influence on nuclear structure, and regulation of proteins and other RNA molecules \cite{zheng_systematic_2021}. Besides acting in regulation, some diseases are related to lncRNA, such as hematopoiesis, some types of cancer, and diseases related to immune and neurological responses \cite{statello_gene_2021}.

\section{Related Works}
\label{sec:relatedworks}
Traditionally, biological sequence analysis is performed using alignment tools and even using computational techniques, such as dynamic programming and optimization methods, has a high computational cost, making its application in large volumes of data unfeasible \cite{de_pierri_sweep_2020}. Several computational tools using the alignment approach were proposed in the last years to solve RNAs prediction and classification such as Coding Potential Calculator (CPC)~\cite{CPC2007}, LncRNA-ID~\cite{LncRNA-ID2015} and PLncPRO~\cite{PLncPRO2017}.

To overcome this limitation, alignment-free methods have been proposed, and these methods combine data mining, pattern recognition, and machine learning techniques to solve biological problems. In particular, for RNA classification different alignment-free approaches have been proposed \cite{zheng_systematic_2021}.

Considering the context of RNA classification using the alignment-free approach, some approaches have been proposed in the literature. Among the main approaches available in the literature are PLEK \cite{PLEK2014}, CPC2 \cite{CPC22017}, and BASiNET \cite{BASiNET2018}.

PLEK (\textit{predictor of long non-coding RNAs and messenger RNAs based on an improved k-mer scheme}) \cite{PLEK2014} is an alignment-free method aiming to classify the RNA sequences into long non-coding and coding RNA. Assuming a k-mer frequency ranging from 1 to 5, features are extracted from the raw sequence using a sliding window with a step of one nucleotide. For each k value, the pattern number increases, i.e., for 1-mer have 4  patterns, for 2-mer have 16 patterns, until 1,024 patterns for 5-mer. Each k-mer pattern is incremented using the frequency of occurrence. These frequencies are calibrated and used as features in the support vector machine (SVM) algorithm to build a binary classification model to identify lncRNAs from mRNAs.

Using a feature list, the CPC2 method \cite{CPC22017} identifies the effective features employing the recursive feature elimination (RFE) approach, and the Fickett TESTCODE score, open reading frame (ORF) length, ORF integrity, and isoelectric point are used as features in the SVM algorithm to classify the coding and non-coding RNA. To create the feature list, the existence of known protein sequences is necessary, i.e., the feature extraction is dependent on data other than the nucleotides sequences. As the CPC2 method depends on known sequences, it has a limitation regarding to extract features from \textit{de novo} sequencing of new organisms or proteins.

More recently, BASiNET \cite{BASiNET2018} was proposed as an alignment-free approach to classify biological sequences based on the use of complex networks and thresholds. The method is based on the mapping of a biological sequence to a weighted complex network, from which topological measurements are extracted for its characterisation \cite{costa_characterization_2007}. Then, thresholds are applied iteratively to remove the less frequent edges and to produce topological measurements at each application of the thresholds. The thresholds are applied until there are edges (maximum 200 iterations). Ten topological measures are extracted at each iteration, thus producing up to 2000 different measurements for each biological sequence. The produced complex network measurements are merged into a single feature vector, one for each biological sequence, and it is adopted as the input for the classification of RNA sequences. However, this huge amount of features leads to high dimensionality in the feature space and increases the computational complexity in terms of processing time and memory.

\section{Complex Networks}
\label{sec:complexnetworks}

Complex networks are graphs with non-trivial topologies, which have a set of vertices (nodes) that are connected through edges \cite{Barabasi}. In fact, many interactions in the real world have connections that can be represented for complex networks, such as social relationships \cite{silva2022}, eletric power grid \cite{albert2004structural}, internet \cite{maslov2004detection}, computer vision \cite{backes2013,lima2015,piotto2016,lima2019,piotto2021} and biological systems \cite{lopes2011b,lopes2014a,Montanini2020}, among others.

A graph is composed of a set of nodes (or vertices) and a set of edges that represent the connections among the nodes. Depending on the application, edges may have a direction and an associated weight.
When there is an edge between two nodes, they are adjacent. Figure \ref{grafo} presents and example of graph, in which the nodes C and A are not adjacent, however, the nodes C and G, and G and A are adjacent. A graph is usually represented by its adjacency matrix, as shown in Table \ref{adj}, which is a n-by-n matrix whose value in row i and column j gives the weight of edges from the i-th to the j-th nodes \cite{costa_characterization_2007}.

\begin{figure}[h]
\centering%
\begin{tikzpicture}[shorten >=1pt, auto, node distance=3cm, ultra thick]
   \begin{scope}[every node/.style={circle,draw=black,fill=cyan!20!,font=\sffamily\Large\bfseries}]
    \node (v1) at (0,0) {C};
    \node (v2) at (3,0) {G};
    \node (v3) at (6,0) {A};

   \end{scope}
   \begin{scope}[every edge/.style={draw=black,ultra thick}]
    \draw  (v1) edge node{1} (v2);
    \draw  (v2) edge node{1} (v3);

   \end{scope}
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{An example of weighted graph generated from the sequence: CGA.}%
\label{grafo}
\end{figure}

\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\caption{Adjacency matrix of the graph (Figure \ref{grafo}).}
\label{adj}
\begin{tabular}{c|ccll}
\textit{}  & \textit{\textbf{A}} & \textit{\textbf{C}} & \textbf{T} & \textbf{G} \\ \hline
\textbf{A} & 0                   & 0                 & 0        & 1  \\
\textbf{C} & 0                   & 0                 & 0        & 1  \\
\textbf{T} & 0                   & 0                 & 0        & 0  \\
\textbf{G} & 1                   & 1                 & 0        & 0
\end{tabular}
\end{table}

The complex network theory presents well-defined topologies that describe the structure and dynamics of an network. In face of this, it is possible to extract measurements to characterize its topological structure \cite{BOCCALETTI2006175,costa_characterization_2007}. For the representation of the topology, in this work were adopted 10 measures commonly used in the current literature for the characterization of complex networks. The adopted measurements are briefly described below.

\begin{itemize}
     \item  Average shortest path length (ASPL): is the average of all the minimum paths in a complex network. \cite{BOCCALETTI2006175}. Its value depends on how concentrated the complex network is, i.e., it is low for very concentrated networks.
     \item Clustering coefficient (CC): has the purpose of calculating the probability that nodes are connected to another node that are also connected to each other. For example, applying this measure to a social network would have the effect of calculating the probability that two people who know a third person, which also know each other. Transitivity can be seen as the formation of triangles in complex networks \cite{BOCCALETTI2006175}.
     \item Maximum degree (MAX): is the measure that presents the node with the largest number of connected edges.
     \item Minimum degree (MIN): is the measure that presents the node with the smallest number of connected edges.
     \item Average degree (DEG): is the average number of connections of the network nodes.
     \item Assortativity (ASS): is the probability that nodes with similar degrees are connected. Positive assortativity values mean that nodes of similar degree tend to connect and negative assortativity values mean the opposite \cite{Panwar2014}.
     \item Average standard deviation (ASD): is the standard deviation of the nodes degree, high values of the average standard deviation show that network has unbalanced numbers of connections, i.e., there are nodes that connect more than others.
     \item Average betweenness centrality (BET): is a standard measure of node centrality that show how relevant a node is by considering the number of shortest paths going through it \cite{costa_characterization_2007,BOCCALETTI2006175}.
       \item  Frequency of motifs with size 3 (MT3): motifs are subgraphs or patterns with various shapes that exist within a network. This measure presents the count of how many motifs of size 3 occur within a network.
       \item  Frequency of motifs with size 4 (MT4): similar to previous measure, is the count of how many motifs of size 4 occur within a network.
   \end{itemize}

\section{Entropy}
\label{sec:entropy}
The concept of entropy was introduced in 1865 by Rudolf Clausius in thermodynamics, considering only macroscopic demonstrations \cite{clausius1879}. A few years later, in 1877, Ludwig Boltzmann showed that entropy can be expressed in terms of probabilities associated with the microscopic configuration of a system \cite{boltzmann1974}, which came to be known in the literature as Boltzmann-Gibbs entropy. Later in 1948, entropy was applied to Information Theory by Claude Shannon \cite{shannon1948} and also often called Shannon's entropy. Entropy is often used to indicate the amount of information in a given source, and is also used to measure the disorder (uncertainty) of a data set \cite{bishop1995}. Consider a random variable $X$ that can take on a discrete value. The Shannon entropy \cite{shannon1963}, like the Boltzmann-Gibbs entropy, is defined in terms of the probabilities of the possible occurrences of this random variable $P(x)$, as follows:

\begin{equation}
    \label{eq:shannonentropy}
    H(X) = -\sum_{x \in X} \ P(x) \log P(x) \textrm{,}
\end{equation}

\noindent so that

\begin{eqnarray}
     \nonumber
     \sum_{x \in X} P(x) = 1 \textrm{.}
\end{eqnarray}

In Equation~\ref{eq:shannonentropy} the average of the logarithms of the probabilities of the occurrences $x$ ($log(P(x)$) weighted by their probabilities $P(x)$ is taken, being assumed $0 \times log(0) = 0$. Thus, entropy represents a measure of uncertainty associated with a variable, i.e., the higher the entropy of a variable, the greater the uncertainty in predicting the value of that variable.

Since then, entropy has been used in various fields of knowledge, from classical thermodynamics, where it was first proposed, to statistical physics and the information theory. Over time, this term, found far-reaching applications in chemistry and physics, and currently the entropy also takes part in the study of biological systems and their relationship to life. Several methods with different application using the entropy concept emerged. One of the most important was the development of the maximum entropy (ME) method by the physicist Edwin Thompson Jaynes \cite{Ja}. It was showed that statistically maximizing entropy to observe how gas molecules were distributed would be equivalent to simply maximizing Shannon’s entropy \cite{6773024, Ja}. In fact, the ME principle can be applied to measure the amount of uncertainty contained in a probability distribution \cite{guiasu1985principle}.

Let $h_1,h_2,\ldots,h_n$ be the observed frequencies of a discrete distribution and let
\begin{equation}
    p_i = \frac{h_i}{N}, \quad \sum_{i=1}^{n} h_i = N, \quad i=1,2,\ldots,n,
    \label{eq:frequencies}
\end{equation}
\noindent where $N$ is the total number of samples, $n$ is the number of events (possible outcomes or states of a system) and $p_i$ is the probability of the $i$-$th$ outcome.

Considering a discrete distribution containing two classes $A$ and $B$, its respective entropy can be defined as follows:
\begin{equation}
    H(A) = - \sum_{i=1}^{s} \frac{p_i}{P_A} \log \frac{p_i}{P_A},
    \label{eq:MEA}
\end{equation}

\begin{equation}
    H(B) = - \sum_{i=s+1}^{n} \frac{p_i}{P_B} \log \frac{p_i}{P_B},
    \label{eq:MEB}
\end{equation}

\begin{equation}
    P_A = \sum_{i=1}^{s} p_i, \quad  P_B = \sum_{i=s+1}^{n} p_i, \quad P_A + P_B = 1.
\end{equation}

Given the entropy of each class $A$ and $B$ its is possible to build the distribution of the sum of entropies $H(A)+H(B)$, then ME can be defined as follows:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:3}
ME = \mathop{\arg \max}\limits_{s = 1,2,\ldots,n} \{H(A)+H(B)\}.
\end{equation}

In this context, its is possible to identify the separability of a system regarding its probability distribution, i.e., to find $s$ into the distribution that produces the maximum ME, leading to the maximum uncertainty between the classes $A$ and $B$ \cite{guiasu1985principle}.

Many applications were proposed over time in a wide variety of scientific research based on ME principle \cite{kapur1992entropy,banavar2010applications,Kumar2021}.
In particular, there are bioinformatics and computational biology methods based on ME principle \cite{Morcos2011, granot2013stimulus, Wouter2014, barros_2017, bottaro2020integrating}, which have proven very suitable and becoming increasingly useful.

\section{Materials and Methods}

\subsection{Materials}
\label{sec:materials}
In order to assess the proposed method, two datasets were adopted. These datasets were commonly used and also allow the results to be compared openly with other methods. The first dataset was obtained from PLEK \cite{PLEK2014} and the second dataset was obtained from CPC2 \cite{CPC22017}. These two datasets contain different RNAs classes from different species.

The specification of species, classes and the number of sequences per organisms is showed in Tables \ref{tab:plek1} and \ref{tab:cpc2}. Regarding the RNA classes, two are available in PLEK dataset:  messenger RNA (mRNA) and long non-coding RNA (lncRNA) and three are available in CPC2 dataset: mRNA, lncRNA and small non-coding RNA (sncRNA). The datasets contain 13 different species, including vertebrates, plant, worm and insect. There are three shared species between the two data sets: \textit{Homo sapiens}, \textit{Mus musculus} and \textit{Danio rerio}.

\begin{table}[!h]
\centering%
\caption{PLEK dataset \cite{PLEK2014}.}
\label{tab:plek1}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|r|}
\hline
Species                    & Class of RNA & Sequences \\ \hline

\multirow{2}{*}{\textit{Homo Sapiens}}       & mRNA                 & 4127                           \\ \cline{2-3}
                                    & ncRNA                & 22389                            \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textit{Mus musculus}}       & mRNA                 & 26062                          \\ \cline{2-3}
                                    & ncRNA                & 2963                           \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textit{Danio rerio}}        & mRNA                 & 14493                          \\ \cline{2-3}
                                    & ncRNA                & 419                            \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textit{Bos taurus}}         & mRNA                 & 13190                          \\ \cline{2-3}
                                    & ncRNA                & 182                            \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textit{Gorilla gorilla}}    & mRNA                 & 33025                          \\ \cline{2-3}
                                    & ncRNA                & 367                            \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textit{Macaca mulatta}}     & mRNA                 & 5709                           \\ \cline{2-3}
                                    & ncRNA                & 359                            \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textit{Pan troglodytes}}    & mRNA                 & 1906                           \\ \cline{2-3}
                                    & ncRNA                & 1166                           \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textit{Pongo abelii}}       & mRNA                 & 3401                           \\ \cline{2-3}
                                    & ncRNA                & 392                            \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textit{Sus scrofa}}         & mRNA                 & 3978                           \\ \cline{2-3}
                                    & ncRNA                & 241                            \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textit{Xenopus tropicalis}} & mRNA                 & 8874                           \\ \cline{2-3}
                                    & ncRNA                & 279                            \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}

\begin{table}[!h]
\centering%
\caption{CPC2 dataset \cite{CPC22017}.}
\label{tab:cpc2}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|r|}
\hline
Species                                                                                & Class of RNA & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{Sequences} \\ \hline
\multirow{3}{*}{\textit{Homo sapiens}}                                                       & mRNA         & 6142                           \\ \cline{2-3}
                                                                                & lncRNA       & 7485                           \\ \cline{2-3}
                                                                                & sncRNA       & 4534                           \\ \hline
\multirow{3}{*}{\textit{Mus musculus}}                                                       & mRNA         & 10638                          \\ \cline{2-3}
                                                                                & lncRNA       & 6460                           \\ \cline{2-3}
                                                                                & sncRNA       & 5791                           \\ \hline
\multirow{3}{*}{\textit{Danio rerio}}                                                        & mRNA         & 2344                           \\ \cline{2-3}
                                                                                & lncRNA       & 1163                           \\ \cline{2-3}
                                                                                & sncRNA       & 365                            \\ \hline
\multirow{3}{*}{\textit{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Arabidopsis \\ thaliana\end{tabular}}}    & mRNA         & 13986                          \\ \cline{2-3}
                                                                                & lncRNA       & 2562                           \\ \cline{2-3}
                                                                                & sncRNA       & 1291                           \\ \hline
\multirow{3}{*}{\textit{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Caenorhabditis \\ elegans\end{tabular}}}  & mRNA         & 3551                           \\ \cline{2-3}
                                                                                & lncRNA       & 1582                           \\ \cline{2-3}
                                                                                & sncRNA       & 7888                           \\ \hline
\multirow{3}{*}{\textit{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Drosophila \\ melanogaster\end{tabular}}} & mRNA         & 3680                           \\ \cline{2-3}
                                                                                & lncRNA       & 2776                           \\ \cline{2-3}
                                                                                & sncRNA       & 780                            \\ \hline

\end{tabular}
\end{table}

\subsection{Methods}
\label{sec:methods}
The development of this work is based on the BASiNET \cite{BASiNET2018} method. In this way, graphs (complex networks) were adopted, which were generated from the RNA sequences from PLEK \cite{PLEK2014} and CPC2 \cite{CPC22017} datasets.

To produce these complex networks, it was necessary to set two parameters, the Step and the Word sizes. The function of the Step size parameter is to define the distance that will be travelled in the sequence after an edge has been formed. Meanwhile, the Word size parameter refers to how many nucleotides will be considered at each node. This process is presented in Figure \ref{fig:graph1}. In this work, similar to the BASiNET, the $step = 1$ and $word = 3$ were adopted.

\begin{figure}[h]
\centering%
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{fig3-sequence-to-graph.pdf}
\caption{Overview of mapping RNA sequences onto graphs.}%
\label{fig:graph1}
\end{figure}

With the graphs produced, it is proposed an approach to select the most informational edges from the RNA class. Based on maximum entropy principle (Sec. \ref{sec:entropy}), the edges of all networks produced for each RNA class were appended composing a single network. Then, by considering the edges frequency (i.e., weights), a histogram was produced. Thus, similarly that image thresholding method \cite{Kapur}, the aim is to find the threshold ($s$) that maximizes the sum of the entropies of two distinct parts (informational and non-informational) edges of each RNA class. In this way, a filter for the network nodes is proposed, by considering the 4096 possibilities (edges), resulting from a 64x64 matrix (word size = 3), to identify what edges are important and what are not important for each RNA class.

\begin{figure}[h]
\centering%
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{fig4-entropy-maximization.pdf}
\caption{Overview of the building $H(A)+H(B)$ entropy distribution and its maximum entropy $ME$.}%
\label{fig:histo}
\end{figure}

The first step of the modelling is to estimate the probabilities of each class $A$ and $B$, i.e., $P_A$ and $P_B$. Then the histogram is traversed from $i=1, \ldots, s$ to estimate $P_A$ and from $s+1, \ldots, n$ to estimate $P_B$, in an iterative way $s=1,2,\ldots,n$ (Sec. \ref{sec:entropy}). Then, the entropy $H(A)$ and $H(B)$ can be also estimated to build the respective $H(A)+H(B)$ distribution and to find its maximum entropy $ME$, i.e., the threshold to identify the informational and non-informational edges of a RNA class. Figure \ref{fig:histo} presents an overview of the proposed approach.

\begin{figure}[h]
\centering%
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{fig5-filtering.pdf}
\caption{Overview of the proposed edge filtering through maximum entropy.}%
\label{fig:filtering}
\end{figure}

The selected edges as informational by the maximum entropy are considered for each RNA class and the non-informational edges are removed, producing a filtered complex network for each class. Figure~\ref{fig:filtering} shows the filtering process.

\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering%
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{fig6-overview.pdf}
\caption{Overview of the proposed method and its steps.}
\label{fig:diagram}
\end{figure}

Thus, a filtered complex network is produced for each RNA class and the adopted measurements are extracted for its characterization (Sec. \ref{sec:complexnetworks}). Considering that each complex network measurement has a different numerical interval, for example, the average shortest path length measure is usually found on the tens scale. Meanwhile, other measures can reach values in the hundreds or even thousands scale, which can make some measures more relevant than others to the classifier. Therefore, it is necessary to pre-process the adjust their values so that they are comparable to each other. In this work, a scaling factor is adopted, commonly known as Min-Max, which scales the values of the measures in the interval between 0 and 1. The Equation \ref{eq:et} defines the rescale of the values.

\begin{equation}\label{eq:et}
V{ri} = \frac{V_i-Min_m}{Max_m - Min_m}, \quad i \in N
\end{equation}
\noindent where $N$ is the total number of samples, $V_i$ is the i-th measure value, $Min_m$ is the minimum value of the measure and $Max_m$ is the maximum value of the measure.

It is important to highlight that the proposed method is based on the identification of the most informational edges of each class, a training is required for each of the classes involved. Figure \ref{fig:diagram} presents the overview of the proposed method.

\section{Results and Discussion}
In order to evaluate the proposed method, two datasets presented in Sec. \ref{sec:materials} were considered. The results were compared with important methods such as: PLEK \cite{PLEK2014}, CPC2 \cite{CPC22017}, BASiNET \cite{BASiNET2018} and also with BASiNET* without considering its iterative threshold step, i.e., producing the same amount of features as the proposed method. In addition, since the adopted datasets are used in other work available in the literature, the experimental results can be directly compared.

\begingroup
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{12pt}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.1}
\begin{table*}[h]
\centering
\caption{Classification results considering the mRNA and ncRNA classes of sequences from PLEK dataset~\cite{PLEK2014}.}
\label{tab:plek}
\begin{tabular}{ccccccc}
\hline
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Species\end{tabular} & Class of RNA & PLEK           & CPC2           & BASiNET*       & BASiNET        & BASiNETEntropy  \\
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textit{Homo Sapiens}}            & mRNA         & 96.7           & 94.3           & 54.4           & 99.9           & 99.6            \\
                                                  & ncRNA        & 99.3           & 93.9           & 95.6           & 100.0          & 100.0           \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textit{Mus musculus}}            & mRNA         & 88.1           & 94.7           & 79.9           & 100.0          & 99.9            \\
                                                  & ncRNA        & 89.9           & 99.9           & 75.9           & 99.9           & 100.0           \\\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textit{Danio rerio}}             & mRNA         & 91.3           & 96.6           & 99.8           & 100.0          & 100.0           \\
                                                  & ncRNA        & 90.9           & 94.0           & 47.9           & 98.9           & 99.5            \\\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textit{Bos taurus}}              & mRNA         & 94.8           & 95.9           & 91.2           & 100.0          & 100.0           \\
                                                  & ncRNA        & 99.5           & 100.0          & 99.8           & 98.9           & 99.5            \\\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textit{Gorilla gorilla}}         & mRNA         & 83.8           & 91.6           & 97.6           & 100.0          & 99.7            \\
                                                  & ncRNA        & 99.7           & 100.0          & 97.6           & 100.0          & 100.0           \\\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textit{Macaca mulatta}}          & mRNA         & 85.0           & 94.2           & 99.1           & 100.0          & 100.0           \\
                                                  & ncRNA        & 100.0          & 100.0          & 94.7           & 100.0          & 99.7            \\\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textit{Pan troglodytes}}         & mRNA         & 87.1           & 93.9           & 97.7           & 100.0          & 99.8            \\
                                                  & ncRNA        & 99.9           & 100.0          & 88.3           & 99.8           & 99.7            \\\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textit{Pongo abelii}}            & mRNA         & 98.0           & 94.4           & 99.9           & 100.0          & 99.9            \\
                                                  & ncRNA        & 100.0          & 100.0          & 98.7           & 99.2           & 99.7            \\\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textit{Sus scrofa}}              & mRNA         & 85.1           & 94.9           & 99.3           & 99.9           & 100.0           \\
                                                  & ncRNA        & 98.3           & 98.3           & 76.3           & 99.6           & 99.6            \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textit{Xenopus tropicalis}}      & mRNA         & 94.5           & 96.5           & 99.1           & 100.0          & 100.0           \\
                                                  & ncRNA        & 100.0          & 100.0          & 95.0           & 100.0          & 100.0           \\
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{Average accuracy per class}       & mRNA         & 90.44          & 94.70          & 92.59          & 99.98          & 99.89           \\
                                                  & ncRNA        & 97.75          & 98.61          & 86.98          & 99.63          & 99.77           \\
\textbf{Overall Average Accuracy}                 & \textbf{–}   & \textbf{94.10} & \textbf{96.66} & \textbf{89.78} & \textbf{99.81} & \textbf{99.83}  \\
\multirow{2}{*}{Standard Deviation}              & mRNA         & 5.28           & 1.46           & 14.71          & 0.04           & 0.14            \\
                                                  & ncRNA        & 3.91           & 2.51           & 16.26          & 0.46           & 0.21            \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
\endgroup

\begingroup
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{12pt}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.1}
\begin{table*}[h]
\centering
\caption{Classification results considering the mRNA, lncRNA and sncRNA classes of sequences from CPC2 dataset \cite{CPC22017}.}
\label{tabelacpc2}
\begin{tabular}{ccccccc}
\hline
Species                                                                                & Class of RNA & PLEK           & CPC2           & BASiNET *      & BASiNET        & BASiNETEntropy  \\
\hline
\multirow{3}{*}{\textit{Homo sapiens}}                                                                & mRNA         & 97.0           & 95.9           & 80.25          & 100.0          & 99.4            \\
                                                                                & lncRNA       & 97.6           & 92.8           & 58             & 100.0          & 99.9            \\
                                                                                & sncRNA       & 100.0          & 100.0          & 53.7           & 100.0          & 100.0           \\\hline
\multirow{3}{*}{\textit{Mus musculus}}                                                                & mRNA         & 89.2           & 93.9           & 89.2           & 100.0          & 99.7            \\
                                                                                & lncRNA       & 91.7           & 95.0           & 99.8           & 99.9           & 100.0           \\
                                                                                & sncRNA       & 100.0          & 100.0          & 72.14          & 99.9           & 99.9            \\\hline
\multirow{3}{*}{\textit{Danio rerio}}                                                                 & mRNA         & 94.4           & 95.5           & 93.3           & 99.5           & 99.7            \\
                                                                                & lncRNA       & 79.2           & 88.1           & 99.5           & 98.9           & 99.5            \\
                                                                                & sncRNA       & 100.0          & 100.0          & 79.2           & 98.7           & 99.5            \\\hline
\multirow{3}{*}{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textit{Arabidopsis }\\\textit{ thaliana}\end{tabular}}    & mRNA         & 63.1           & 99.7           & 96.8           & 99.7           & 99.9            \\
                                                                                & lncRNA       & 99.6           & 95.3           & 86.8           & 99.7           & 99.8            \\
                                                                                & sncRNA       & 100.0          & 100.0          & 97.3           & 100.0          & 100.0           \\ \hline
\multirow{3}{*}{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textit{Caenorhabditis}\\\textit{ elegans}\end{tabular}}   & mRNA         & 53.0           & 96.5           & 77.8           & 100.0          & 100.0           \\
                                                                                & lncRNA       & 98.4           & 99.9           & 100            & 99.4           & 99.2            \\
                                                                                & sncRNA       & 100.0          & 100.0          & 88.7           & 99.9           & 100.0           \\\hline
\multirow{3}{*}{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textit{Drosophila }\\\textit{ melanogaster}\end{tabular}} & mRNA         & 82.8           & 94.6           & 99.9           & 98.5           & 97.3            \\
                                                                                & lncRNA       & 87.5           & 91.9           & 84.6           & 97.3           & 99.4            \\
                                                                                & sncRNA       & 100.0          & 100.0          & 77.4           & 99.7           & 100.0           \\
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{Average accuracy per class}                                                           & mRNA         & 79.92          & 96.02          & 89.52          & 99.62          & 99.33           \\
                                                                                & ncRNA        & 96.17          & 96.92          & 83.09          & 99.45          & 99.77           \\
\textbf{\textbf{Overall Average Accuracy}}                                                            & \textbf{–}   & \textbf{90.75} & \textbf{96.62} & \textbf{85.23} & \textbf{99.51} & \textbf{99.62}  \\
\multirow{2}{*}{Standard Deviation}                                                                   & mRNA         & 17.92          & 2.03           & 8.15           & 0.58           & 0.68            \\
                                                                                & ncRNA        & 6.67           & 4.18           & 15.13          & 0.81           & 0.29            \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
\endgroup

\begingroup
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{12pt}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.2}
\begin{table*}[h]
\centering
\caption{Classification results considering mRNA and ncRNA sequences for shared species from PLEK \cite{PLEK2014} and CPC2 \cite{CPC22017} datasets. The CPC2 sequences were adopted for the training step and the PLEK sequences were adopted for the classification (test) step.}
\label{cross}
\begin{tabular}{ccccccc}

\hline
Species                                   & Class of RNA      & PLEK           & CPC2           & BASiNET*       & BASiNET        & BASiNETEntropy \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textit{Homo sapiens}}     & mRNA        & 90.0           & 94.8           & 88.9           & 99.4           & 99.7            \\
                                           & ncRNA       & 55.0           & 94.1           & 82.9           & 99.2           & 100.0           \\\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textit{Danio rerio}}      & mRNA        & 100.0          & 96.1           & 99.7           & 100.0          & 99.7            \\
                                           & ncRNA       & 40.3           & 94.1           & 20.5            & 99.9           & 100.0           \\\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textit{Mus musculus}}     & mRNA        & 91.6           & 96.1           & 99.8           & 100            & 99.9            \\
                                           & ncRNA       & 95.8           & 93.1           & 95.0          & 99.9           & 99.7            \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{Average accuracy per class} & mRNA        & 93.85          & 95.67          & 96.13          & 99.80         & 99.76           \\
                                           & ncRNA       & 63.70          & 93.76          & 66.13          & 99.67          & 99.90           \\
\textbf{Overall Average Accuracy}                       & \textbf{--} & \textbf{78.78} & \textbf{94.72} & \textbf{81.13} & \textbf{99.73} & \textbf{99.83}  \\
\multirow{2}{*}{Standard Deviation}             & mRNA        & 4.40           & 0.61           & 6.26           &  0.34           & 0.09            \\
                                           & ncRNA       & 23.48          & 0.47           & 39.9          &  0.40           & 0.14            \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
\endgroup

The first experiment was performed by considering the PLEK dataset. The proposed method was applied in order to extract the complex network topological measurements (features). Then, the Random Forest \cite{rf} was adopted as a classifier. The competitor methods were performed by considering its default parameters. All methods were performed by considering the 10-fold cross-validation.

Table \ref{tab:plek} presents the results of the classifications considering the classes: mRNAs and ncRNAs. It can be seen that the proposed method showed the highest average accuracy among all the methods compared and lower standards deviations. In particular, it is important to note that BASiNET extracts 2,000 features with the application of the threshold step, leading to a feature space with high dimensionality. When not considering the threshold step, (BASiNET*), it clearly presents a decrease in accuracy, especially considering the ncRNA class. TThe proposed method shows that correctly identify which edges were important to define the topological structure of the network, and as a result, to characterize each class of RNA. Therefore, extracting only 10 features showed remarkable results, contributing to the correct identification of the RNA sequences and also with the reduction of the feature space. Thus, leading to a simpler and more efficient method for feature extraction from RNA sequences and their classification.

The second experiment was performed considering the CPC2 dataset in which the proposed method was applied in the same way as the previous experiment as well as the competitor methods. Table \ref{tabelacpc2} presents the results of the classifications considering the classes mRNAs, lncRNAs and sncRNAs. Again, the BASiNETEntropy showed higher accuracies compared with competitor methods and also with the lowest values of standard deviation, reinforcing the assertiveness and robustness of the proposed method. It is important to point out that BASiNET* again presents a decrease in accuracy, reinforcing the importance of its threshold step when compared with BASiNET.

The third experiment was performed considering a cross-validation between the shared species in PLEK and CPC2 datasets. The RNA classes considered in this experiment were ncRNA and mRNA, so the lncRNA and sncRNA classes from the CPC2 dataset were grouped into a single ncRNA class. In this way, the RNA sequences of each class and species in the CPC2 dataset were adopted for the training step. The respective RNA sequences in PLEK dataset were adopted in the classification (test) step. Therefore, the goal of this experiment was to test the generalization of the methods when trained with sequences from one dataset and tested with sequences from another dataset, considering the same species.

Table \ref{cross} presents the results of the cross-validation between the datasets considering the three shared species: \textit{Homo sapiens},  \textit{Danio rerio} and  \textit{Mus musculus}. It is possible to notice that PLEK method showed a significant decrease in accuracy considering the ncRNA class from \textit{Homo Sapiens} and \textit{Danio rerio} species. On the other hand, the CPC2 method presents similar results to the previous ones, showing its suitability in generalizing the classification of RNA sequences. The BASiNET* method (without the threshold step) presented the lowest accuracy for the ncRNA class considering the \textit{Danio rerio}, showing again the importance of its threshold step when compared to its original version. BASiNET and BASiNETEntropy were the most assertive methods, with a slight superiority of the proposed method in assertiveness and robustness.

In summary, the results showed that BASiNET* without considering its threshold step had the lowest average accuracy in experiment 1 and 2 and the highest standard deviation. PLEK had the lowest average accuracy in experiment 3, when a cross-validation between data from the adopted datasets was performed, showing low generalization. CPC2 proved stable in all experiments with high accuracy rates and low standard deviation. BASiNET and BASiNETEntropy methods clearly outperform the competitor methods, showing the highest accuracy values and lowest standard deviation in all experiments.

The results show that proposed entropy maximization approach reduces the complexity in terms of dimensionality, extracting only 10 features, while maintaining high accuracy values and low standard deviation. Therefore, the proposed approach proved its efficiency in simplifying the characterization of RNA sequences, maintaining a high assertiveness and robustness in their classification.

\section{Conclusion}
\label{sec:conclusion}

The classification of biological sequences has become increasingly challenging because of the amount and variety of sequences currently generated \cite{de2021towards}. Traditional methods based on the alignment between sequences require a high computational cost to be performed, being unfeasible for comparing large amounts of data.

This work presents the BASiNETEntropy method as an alignment-free machine learning approach for classifying biological sequences, in particular into different RNA classes. This work is based on a previous method, BASiNET, and presents a significant improvement by eliminating the threshold step that extracts 2,000 features, leading to a high dimensionality in the feature space. Therefore, a filter step based on entropy maximization principle is proposed to select the most representative edges of each class, significantly reducing the number of extracted features.

Two important datasets from the literature were adopted for the assessment of the proposed method, comparing the results with the methods PLEK, CPC2, BASiNET and BASiNET* (removing its threshold step).
The proposed method showed higher accuracies among all competitor methods considering the two adopted datasets. In addition, BASiNETEntropy presented the smallest variations, showing its robustness. Even when cross-validation was performed between the adopted datasets, considering the shared species, the proposed method showed better generalization when classifying the sequences with greater assertiveness among the compared methods. Besides, the proposed method opens the possibility of training and application in other classes of biological sequences.

The BASiNETEntropy method was implemented in open source (R language). The source code, confusion matrices, as well as all the materials for the complete replication of this work are available at \url{https://github.com/fabriciomlopes/BASiNETEntropy}. The software package can also be downloaded at \url{https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/BASiNETEntropy}.

\section{Acknowledgments}%
MMB thanks the Universidade Tecnológica Federal do Paraná (UTFPR) for the scholarship (PIBIC 2020/2021). This study was financed in part by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior - Brasil (CAPES) - Finance Code 001 and the Funda\c{c}\~{a}o Arauc\'{a}ria e do Governo do Estado do Paran\'{a}/SETI (Grant number 035/2019, 138/2021 and NAPI - Bioinform\'{a}tica).

Molecular Networks (q-bio.MN); Computational Engineering, Finance, and Science (cs.CE); Information Theory (cs.IT); Machine Learning (cs.LG); Genomics (q-bio.GN)


Dynamical magnetoelectric effects in multiferroic oxides

Abstract: Multiferroics with coexistent ferroelectric and magnetic orders can provide an interesting laboratory to test unprecedented magnetoelectric responses and their possible applications. One such example is the dynamical and/or resonant coupling between magnetic and electric dipoles in a solid. As the examples of such dynamical magnetoelectric effects, (1) the multiferroic domain wall dynamics and (2) the electric-dipole active magnetic responses are discussed with the overview of recent experimental observations.

\section{Introduction

Highly efficient control of magnetism in terms of electric field or current in a solid may widen the bottle-neck of the contemporary spin-electronics technology. Since the magnetoelectric (ME) effect, meaning magnetic (electric) induction of polarization $P$ (magnetization $M$), was first confirmed in 1959--60 (Dzyaloshinskii 1960; Astrov 1960), many magnetic materials have been demonstrated to show this effect (Fiebig {\it et al.} 2005). Nevertheless, the magnitude of the observed ME effect has been too small to apply to any practical devices.

Multiferroics, the materials in which both magnetic and ferroelectric orders can coexist, are the prospective candidate which can potentially host the gigantic ME effect. A naive expectation is that the large ME effect may be driven by weak electric or magnetic field, if the $M$ and $P$ shows the close coupling. There can be several possible ways to materialize the multiferroics. However, the $P-M$ coexistence alone does not necessarily lead to the effective mutual coupling. In this context, the magnetically driven ferroelectricity is the most plausible candidate in which the enhanced $M-P$ coupling is anticipated.

Various types of spin orders can have a potential to break the inversion symmetry and produce the spontaneous (ferroelectric) $P$. This is true even irrespective of its collinear or non-collinear form, when they are placed on some specific lattice geometry. For example, the up-up-down-down collinear spin arrangement along the atomically alternate A-B lattice [Fig. \ref{SS}(a)] can break the inversion symmetry, and in reality the inequivalent interatomic forces (exchange striction) working between the up-up (or down-down) spin pair and the up-down one can produce the $P$. This type of magnetostriction induced ferroelectricity has been found in several materials (Inomata {\it et al.} 1996; Choi {\it et al.} 2008; Tokunaga {\it et al.} 2008); in this case the long-range magnetic order should be commensurate with the lattice periodicity.

On the other hand, rather lattice-form independent mechanisms for the magnetically induced ferroelectricity have recently been found for versatile compounds with spiral spin orders as depicted in Figs. \ref{SS}(c)--\ref{SS}(f). When the spins on the adjacent atomic sites are mutually canted [Fig. \ref{SS}(b)], the horizontal mirror-plane symmetry is lost, meaning the possible generation of the polarization along the vertical direction (Katsura {\it et al.} 2005; Sergienko {\it et al.} 2006; Mostovoy 2006). Recently, it has been theoretically shown (Katsura {\it et al.} 2005) that the overlap of the electron wave function between the two atomic sites with canted spins generates the genuine electronic polarization via the spin-orbit interaction. In other words, spontaneous spin current flows between the mutually canted spin sites; by analogy to the charge current as producing magnetic field, the spin current produces fictitious electric field or electric polarization.

\begin{figure}[bt]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.76\textwidth]{Figure1.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{(Online version in colour) Inversion symmetry breaking by (a) collinear and (b) noncollinear magnetic order and possible polarization direction. (c)--(f) Schematic illustrations of types of spiral magnetic structures on a one-dimensional array of magnetic moments S(r). They include (c) proper screw, (d) cycloidal, (e) longitudinal-conical, and (f) transverse-conical magnetic structure. The magnitudes of macroscopic polarization calculated from the spin current model or inverse DM model (Katsura {\it et al.} 2003; Sergienko {\it et al.} 2006) are also indicated for their respective structures.}
\label{SS}
\end{figure}

When the spins form the transverse-spiral (cycloidal) modulation along the specific crystallographic direction [Fig. \ref{SS}(d)], every nearest-neighbor spin pair produces the unidirectional local $P$ and hence the macroscopic $P$ of electronic (magnetic) origin should be generated. The spontaneous polarization can be expressed as
\begin{equation}
P=a\sum_{<i,j>}e_{ij}\times(S_i\times S_j).
\label{SpinCurrent}
\end{equation}
Here, $e_{ij}$ is the unit vector connecting the neighboring spins $S_i$ and $S_j$, and the proportional constant $a$ is determined by the spin-orbit and spin exchange interactions as well as the possible spin-lattice coupling term. The plus/minus of $P$ direction depends on a clock-wise or counter-clock-wise rotation of the spin (called spin helicity) in proceeding along the spiral propagation axis. The model is now termed the spin current model (Katsura-Nagaosa-Balatsky model) on the basis of the above-mentioned duality analogy, or the inverse Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya (DM) model. The latter naming is based on the following scenario (Sergienko {\it et al.} 2006): The conventional DM interaction on the noncentrosymmetric bond causes the canting of the interacting spins. Conversely, the canted spins by some other reasons ($e.g.,$ magnetic frustration) may displace the intervening ion bridging the spin sites so as to generate the new DM vector or the local polarization. In the cycloidal spin order, this inverse DM mechanism can also produce the macroscopic polarization as described in Eq. (\ref{SpinCurrent}).

\section{Perovskite manganites with cycloidal spin orders

\begin{figure}[bt]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.99\textwidth]{Figure2.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{(Online version in colour) (a) Schematic illustration of spin/orbital ordered state and magnetic exchange interactions for LaMnO$_3$. (b) The solved magnetic structures at Mn sites in paraelectric antiferromagnetic phase $(T_{\rm c} < T < T_{\rm N})$ and ferroelectric antiferromagnetic phase $(T < T_{\rm c})$ for (Tb, Dy)MnO$_3$ $(q_{\rm m}=1/3)$ (Arima {\it et al.} 2006). (c) Temperature profiles of electric polarization along the $a$, $b$, and $c$ axes for TbMnO$_3$ (Kimura {\it et al.} 2003b). (d) Corresponding temperature dependence of the polarized neutron scattering intensity at $Q$ = (4, $+q_{\rm m}$, 1). $I_{\downarrow}$ and $I_{\uparrow}$ indicate the scattering intensities for the neutron spin parallel and antiparallel to $Q$, respectively (Yamasaki {\it et al.} 2007a). }
\label{RMnO3}
\end{figure}

The strong $M-P$ coupling based on the spiral spin order is prototypically observed for perovskite type manganites $R$MnO$_3$ ($R$ = Tb, Dy, Eu$_{1-x}$Y$_x$) (Kimura {\it et al.} 2003b; 2005; Noda {\it et al.} 2006; Hemberger {\it et al.} 2007; Yamasaki {\it et al.} 2007b) which shows the transverse spiral (cycloidal) spin order, as shown in Fig. \ref{SS}(d). $R$MnO$_3$ is the parent compound of the colossal-magnetoresistance (CMR) oxides (Tokura 2006), but its ground state was thus turned out to be occasionally ferroelectric in nature. Among four $3d$ electrons on a Mn$^{3+}$ site, three are accommodated in the lower-lying $t_{2g}$ orbital and one is in the doubly degenerate $e_{\rm g}$ orbital. The collective Jahn-Teller distortion helps the $e_{\rm g}$-orbital to order in a staggered manner on the $ab$-plane as shown in Fig. \ref{RMnO3}(a). Then, the superexchange interaction between the nearest Mn spins on the $ab$ plane $(J_1)$ is ferromagnetic in nature, while the interaction along the $c$ axis is antiferromagnetic. This is the case typically observed for LaMnO$_3$ with the $A$-type (layered antiferromagnetic) order.  When the ionic size of $R$ site becomes smaller, the orthorhombic (GdFeO$_3$ type) distortion of the perovskite or the Mn-O-Mn bond angle distortion increases and accordingly the in-plane second-nearest antiferromagnetic interaction $(J_2)$ increases to compete with $J_1$. The consequence of such magnetic frustration is the realization of long-period incommensurate magnetic modulation structure (Kimura {\it et al.} 2003a). In the case of TbMnO$_3$ or DyMnO$_3$, the compound first undergoes the collinear sinusoidal antiferromagnetic spin order with the magnetic $q$-vector $q_m=0.25-0.45 b^\ast$ (in the $Pbnm$ setting) with lowering temperature and then subsequently turns to the $bc$-plane cycloidal (transverse-spiral) spin order, as confirmed by neutron diffraction studies (Kenzelmann {\it et al.} 2005; Arima {\it et al.} 2006). The case for the (Tb, Dy)MnO$_3$ with a prescribed commensurate value of $q=1/3$ (Arima {\it et al.} 2006) is shown in  Fig. \ref{RMnO3}(b); the cycloidal order is deformed in reality and well described by the elliptic rotation of spins. In accord with the onset of the cycloidal spin order, the spontaneous polarization $P$ emerges along the $c$ axis. The direction of $P$ is in accord with the prediction of the afore-mentioned spin current model (or inverse DM model) and its plus/minus or equivalently the spin helicity is controlled by the direction of the electric field $E$ during the cooling procedure. Recent first-principles calculations (Malashevich {\it et al.} 2008; Xiang {\it et al.} 2008) with consideration of both electronic and lattice contributions can well reproduce the experimental observation.

The reversal of the spin helicity or vector spin chirality $C (=\sum_i S_i\times S_j)$ upon the $E$-induced reversal of $P$ was experimentally confirmed by measurements of the polarized neutron scattering on TbMnO$_3$ (Yamasaki {\it et al.} 2007a) in which strong asymmetry in polarized neutron scattering intensity at $q=\pm q_m$ is observed.  Figure \ref{RMnO3}(d) shows the temperature dependence of the polarized neutron scattering intensities, $(I_\downarrow+I_\uparrow)/2$ and $(I_\downarrow-I_\uparrow)/2$, for TbMnO$_3$. Here, $I_\downarrow$ and $I_\uparrow$ represent respectively the scattering intensities with the neutron spin parallel and antiparallel to the scattering vector which was set nearly parallel to $a^\ast$ in the experiment. The averaged intensity $(I_\downarrow+I_\uparrow)/2$ shows the onset of the incommensurate spin order $(q_m\sim0.3b^\ast)$ below $T_{\rm N}$, while the differential intensity $(I_\downarrow-I_\uparrow)/2$ coincides with the emergence of the cycloidal (to be exact, transverse-elliptical) spin order below $T_{\rm C}$. At the ferroelectric single-domain state, the differential scattering intensity $(I_\downarrow-I_\uparrow)/2$ is approximately proportional to $m_bm_c$ in the present scattering geometry; here, $m_b$ and $m_c$ is the amplitudes of the $b$ and $c$ components of the $bc$-plane cycloidal spins. Note here that the $m_bm_c$ should be proportional to $P$ in the spin current model or inverse DM model [Eq. (\ref{SpinCurrent})]. The nearly parallel behaviour is observed between the spontaneous $P$ along the $c$ axis [Fig. \ref{RMnO3}(c)] and the differential scattering intensity $(I_\downarrow-I_\uparrow)/2$, which confirms the mechanism of the spin current model or the inverse DM interaction for the present magnetically induced ferroelectricity.

\section{Multiferroic domain walls in perovskite manganites}

The application of $H$ on the multiferroic $R$MnO$_3$ may often lead the flop of the spin spiral plane, $e.g.,$ from $bc$ to $ab$ plane, which leads the flop of $P$ as well. Such $H$-induced $P$ flop can be viewed as a gigantic magnetoelectric effect, a hallmark of the spiral spin multiferroics. When the $P$ flop is discontinuous with respect to the $H$ magnitude/direction, a new notable magnetoelectric effect is observed due to the coexistence of the different spiral-spin domains with the different spiral planes and/or spiral $q$-vectors. As a prototypical example, we show the magnetoelectric responses for DyMnO$_3$ (Fig. \ref{DyMnO3DW}) (Goto {\it et al.} 2004; Kagawa {\it et al.} 2009) when external $H$ is applied along the $b$ axis; the $P\| c$ or $bc$-plane spin cycloid is turned into the $P\| a$ or $ab$-plane spin cycloid, $e.g.,$ around 2.5 T at 10 K [see Figs. \ref{DyMnO3DW}(d) and \ref{DyMnO3DW}(e)]. The mechanism of the $P$ flop in case of $H\| b$ is rather complex under the competition of the magnetic anisotropy and DM interaction as described in literature (Mochizuki {\it et al.} 2009). The transition is strongly of the first-order nature and hence there may occur the coexistence of the $P\| a$ and $P\| c$ domains. The dielectric constant measured along the $a$-axis shows a large enhancement while scanning $H$ across the phase boundary [Fig. \ref{DyMnO3DW}(f)]. This is one of the largest magnetocapacitance effects observed in multiferroics. The spectra of the dielectric response on the $P$-flop phase boundary (at 2.5 T and at 10 K) are shown in Figs. \ref{DyMnO3DW}(a) and \ref{DyMnO3DW}(b); real and imaginary part of dielectric susceptibility, respectively. The behaviour is typical of Debye type relaxation; the dielectric anomaly upon the $P$-flop transition is thus ascribed not to the resonance type due to some soft mode, but to the lower-lying relaxation mode relevant to the domain wall excitations. Such a dielectric relaxation was suggested in recent literature (Schrettle {\it et al.} 2009) also as the key for magnetocapacitance phenomena.

\begin{figure}[bt]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.99\textwidth]{Figure3.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{(Online version in colour) (a) Real and (b) imaginary part of dielectric constant as a function of frequency measured for DyMnO$_3$ at 10 K under various magnitudes of magnetic field. (c) Calculated domain wall structure between the $P \| +c$ ($bc$-cycloidal) and $P \| +a$ ($ab$-cycloidal) domains. Blue and red arrows represent the Mn spins and local electric polarizations, respectively. The color gradation represents the angle of local electric polarization relative to the $a$-axis. (d) Temperature versus magnetic-field phase diagram for DyMnO$_3$ under $H\| b$ determined from dielectric measurements. $H (\| b)$-dependence of (e) electric polarization ($P \| a$ or $c$) and (f) dielectric constant $(\epsilon\| a)$ are also indicated. Reproduced from Ref. (Kagawa {\it et al.} 2009).}
\label{DyMnO3DW}
\end{figure}

There are four possible multiferroic domains, $P\|\pm a$ ($ab$-plane spiral with $\pm$spin helicity) and $P\|\pm c$ ($bc$-plane spiral with $\pm$spin helicity), and hence six kinds of domain wall excitations connecting the respective multiferroic domains. Since each polarization direction possesses one-by-one correspondence to a unique set of spin spiral plane and spin helicity, both ferroelectric and magnetic order parameters are expected to change simultaneously across these multiferroic domain walls (MFDW). The present relaxation process, which is present only near the $P$-flop transition region, can be assigned to the dynamical motion of the domain wall between the $P\|\pm a$ and $P\|\pm c$ domains (Kagawa {\it et al.} 2009). To be noted for this MFDW dynamics is that it is dynamically active (up to 1 MHz region) down to low temperature ($e.g.,$ 5 K), sustaining to host the large magnetocapacitance effect. The atomically-thin ferroelectric domain wall in conventional ferroelectrics becomes frozen in dynamics when temperature is decreased from the Curie temperature, in particular at such low temperatures as in the present case. In contrast, the MFDW is magnetic in nature and can be active in analogy to the $H$-driven activity of the ferromagnetic domain wall. The simulation based on the Heisenberg model with suitable parameters for multiferroic DyMnO$_3$ predicts the MFDW running parallel to the $bc$-plane, as shown in Fig. \ref{DyMnO3DW}(c) (Kagawa {\it et al.} 2009); the $bc$-plane and $ac$-plane spin cycloids vary smoothly across the MFDW.

\section{Electromagnons in perovskite manganites}

Another important topic of the dynamical ME effect is the electric-dipole active magnetic resonance, termed electromagnon. Conventionally, the magnetic resonance is driven by the magnetic field $H^\omega$ component of electromagnetic wave or light as appearing in the magnetic permeability spectrum $\mu(\omega)$ in gigahertz to terahertz frequency range. By contrast, the electromagnon is a magnetic {excitation driven by the electric field $E^\omega$ component of light. Therefore, it emerges as the magnetic resonance in the dielectric constant spectrum $\epsilon(\omega)$. Although the electromagnon was theoretically considered since 1970 (Bar'yakhtar {\it et al.} 1970; they originally named it seignetomagnon), the possible signature of electromagnons was recently observed in $\epsilon(\omega)$ of prototypical multiferroics $R$MnO$_3$ by using a backward wave oscillator (BWO) as a light source; at 2.9 meV for TbMnO$_3$ and at 2.5 meV for GdMnO$_3$ around 10 K in zero $H$ ($bc$ spiral spin phase with $P_{\rm s}\| c$) (Pimenov {\it et al.} 2006a). Pimenov {\it et al.} also clarified that the observed absorption becomes electrically active for $E^\omega\| a$ but reduces in intensity upon the magnetic transition from the $bc$ spiral to the $A$-type AFM order by applying the external $H$ along the $c$-axis. Based on these results, they discussed the possible emergence of electromagnons in these compounds. Their pioneering work has stimulated the investigations concerning the low-energy spin dynamics in a variety of multiferroics (Kida {\it et al.} 2009).

Considerable efforts have been devoted to elucidate the microscopic origin of electromagnons in $R$MnO$_3$. On the basis of the spin-current model that explains the ferroelectricity in $R$MnO$_3$, Katsura {\it et al.} discussed the possibility that the electromagnon appears at terahertz frequencies along the direction perpendicular to the spiral spin plane due to the oscillation of the spiral spin plane;  $E^\omega \| a$ and $E^\omega \| c$ in $bc$ and $ab$ spiral spin ordered phases, respectively (Katsura {\it et al.} 2007). Soon after, Senff {\it et al.} performed polarized inelastic neutron scattering experiments on TbMnO$_3$ in the $bc$ spiral spin ordered phase and found the magnetic excitation around 2 meV at $k=0$ magnetic zone-center (Senff {\it et al.} 2007). The observed peak position is nearly identical to that of the electromagnon in TbMnO$_3$ revealed by BWO spectroscopy.

However, more recent spectroscopic studies on light-polarization and $H$ dependences for DyMnO$_3$ have proven that an origin of electromagnons is neither the modulation of $P_{\rm s}$ nor the rotation mode of the spiral spin plane (Kida {\it et al.} 2008) but perhaps related to the magnetic modulation of the local electric-dipoles via the underlying ionic lattice (Vald\'{e}s Aguilar {\it et al.} 2009) or orbital ordering (Miyahara {\it et al.} 2008). As an example for the basic feature of electromagnons in $R$MnO$_3$, we show in Fig. \ref{EM} the complete set of the light-polarization dependence of the optical spectra $\epsilon\mu(\omega)$ of DyMnO$_3$ in the $bc$ spiral spin ordered phase, as revealed by terahertz time-domain spectroscopy (Kida {\it et al.} 2008). At terahertz frequencies (1 THz $\approx$ 4 meV), there is an antiferromagnetic resonance (AFMR) driven by $H^\omega$. The respective $\epsilon\mu(\omega)$ spectra for the crystal plates ($ac$, $ab$, and $bc$ end-surfaces) with respect to various light-polarizations ($E^\omega$ and $H^\omega$) can isolate the electric and magnetic contributions. Indeed, AFMRs can be seen in $\epsilon\mu(\omega)$ around 2 meV when $H^\omega$ was set parallel to the $a$-axis; we can see the nearly same spectral shape in $\epsilon\mu(\omega)$ for $E^\omega\| c$ and $H^\omega\| a$ [Fig. \ref{EM}(d)] and $E^\omega\| b$ and $H^\omega\| a$ [Fig. \ref{EM}(e)] in spite of different $E^\omega$ polarizations. On the other hand, the pronounced broad absorption in $Im[\epsilon\mu(\omega)]$ composed of two peak structures around 2 meV and 6 meV is discerned for $E^\omega\| a$ and $H^\omega\| c$ [Fig. \ref{EM}(a)]; the lower peak energy nearly coincides with that of AFMR for $H^\omega\| a$. In accord with this absorption, there is a dispersive structure in $Re[\epsilon\mu(\omega)]$. Its magnitude reaches the maximum (about 30), twice as large as that of $Re[\epsilon\mu(\omega)]$ $(= 15-17)$ in other geometries [Figs. \ref{EM}(c), (d), (e), and (f)]. Such a broad absorption is clearly identified only for $E^\omega\| a$; the nearly same spectral shape including the peak position and the magnitude is also observed for $E^\omega\| a$ and $H^\omega\| b$ in spite of different $H^\omega$ polarizations [Fig. \ref{EM}(b)]. In addition, this absorption grows in intensity with lowering temperature below $T_{\rm N}=42$ K and is further enhanced below $T_{\rm c}=19$ K, as shown in the temperature dependence of $\epsilon\mu(\omega)$ spectra for $E^\omega\| a$ and $H^\omega\| c$ [Fig. \ref{EM}(g)]. Therefore, the observed gigantic broad absorption band expanding in the energy region 1--10 meV can be ascribed to the electromagnon for $E^\omega\| a$.

\begin{figure}[bt]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.99\textwidth]{Figure4.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{(Online version in colour) (a)--(f): Real (upper panels) and imaginary (lower panels) parts of $\epsilon\mu$ spectra of DyMnO$_3$ with respect to $E^\omega$ and $H^\omega$ using crystal plates of $ac$, $ab$, and $bc$, measured around 10 K. (g) $\epsilon\mu$ spectra for $E^\omega\| a$ and $H^\omega\| c$ with varying temperature and magnetic field. Reproduced from (Kida {\it et al.} 2008; 2009).}
\label{EM}
\end{figure}

To clarify the dominant role of the spiral spin order in electromagnons of $R$MnO$_3$, the effect of external $H$ on the $\epsilon\mu(\omega)$ spectra was studied in DyMnO$_3$ for $E^\omega\| a$ and $H^\omega\| c$. At 7 K, the direction of the spiral spin plane is flopped at 20 kOe from $bc$ to $ab$ by applying $H$ along the $b$-axis. The measured $\epsilon\mu(\omega)$ spectra are also included in Fig. \ref{EM}(g). Contrary to the expected characteristic of the rotation mode of the spiral spin plane, that is, the change of the polarization of the electromagnon absorption from $E^\omega\| a$ to $E^\omega\| c$, the almost identical electromagnon absorption is discerned with $E^\omega\| a$ even for the $ab$ spiral spin order, as exemplified by $\epsilon\mu(\omega)$ in $H$ of 33 kOe and 59 kOe. This is a direct proof that the electromagnon is only active along the $a$-axis, irrespective of the direction of the spiral spin plane. Lately, the detailed light-polarization dependence of $\epsilon\mu(\omega)$ was measured in the $ab$ spiral spin phase of Gd$_{0.7}$Tb$_{0.3}$MnO$_3$, which also indicates that the electromagnon only appears along the $a$-axis (Kida {\it et al.} 2009).

One plausible scenario to explain the unique selection-rule of the electromagnon in $R$MnO$_3$ is to consider the symmetric exchange interaction between the mutually canted spins on the underlying perovskite lattice (Vald\'{e}s Aguilar {\it et al.} 2009; Miyahara {\it et al.} 2008), in which local electric dipoles are built in via the Mn-O-Mn bond distribution or staggered $e_g$ orbital order. The calculation based on the cycloidal spin structures in the orbital ordered state can explain the basic feature of the higher-lying electromagnon around 8 meV in terms of the electric-dipole active zone-edge magnon. The validity of this assignment was confirmed by the systematic investigations on the electromagnon spectra of $R$MnO$_3$ with varying the ionic radius of $R$ or equivalently the exchange energy $(J)$ (Lee {\it et al.} 2009). However, there is still an open question concerning the origin of the lower-lying electromagnons around 2 meV, whose energy is nearly identical to the peak position of $k=0$ AFMRs (zone-center magnon). Another important feature of the electromagnon is a coupling with optical phonons; the spectral weight of the electromagnon is transferred from that of the lowest phonon mode along the $a$-axis (Pimenov {\it et al.} 2006b; Vald\'{e}s Aguilar {\it et al.} 2007; Takahashi {\it et al.} 2008). On the contrary, there is no remarkable anomaly in the phonon dispersion curve along the $c$-axis at $T_{\rm N}$ and $T_{\rm c}$, as revealed by inelastic X-ray scattering experiments on TbMnO$_3$ (Kajimoto {\it et al.} 2009).

\section{Dynamical magnetoelectric effects in conical spin ferroelectrics

Up to now, the inverse DM model (Sergienko {\it et al.} 2006) or the spin-current model (Katsura {\it et al.} 2005) as expressed by Eq. (\ref{SpinCurrent}) has been quite useful to find ample examples of multiferroelectricity. Furthermore, this strategy can be applied also to the transverse-conical spin state [Fig. \ref{SS}(f)] in which the ferromagnetic (homogeneous) and spiral components of the magnetization can coexist. Note that the transverse-conical order can also give rise to the electric polarization along the direction parallel to the cycloidal plane and perpendicular to the $q$-vector, according to Eq. (\ref{SpinCurrent}). This may lead to the true ($i.e.,$ in the sense of both ferromagnetic and ferroelectric) multiferroics of magnetic origin. Here we present the two prototypical cases; spinel type CoCr$_2$O$_4$ (Yamsaki {\it et al.} 2006; Choi {\it et al.} 2009) and Y-type hexaferrite Ba$_2$Mg$_2$Fe$_{12}$O$_{22}$ (Ishiwata {\it et al.} 2008). The former is a generic transverse-conical magnet [Fig. \ref{SS}(f)], while the latter is an originally longitudinal conical magnet [Fig. \ref{SS}(e)] but turned into a transverse state with a low magnetic field applied along the slanted direction off the screw axis ($q$-vector).

The spinel type CoCr$_2$O$_4$ (Fig. \ref{CoCr2O4}) undergoes the ferrimagnetic transition at $T_{\rm C}=93$ K, and with further lowering temperature the transition to the transverse-conical spin state, $i.e.,$ the ferromagnetic plus transverse-spiral spin state, with the incommensurate propagation vector of ($q$, $q$, 0) $(q\sim0.63)$ takes place at $T_{\rm S}=26$ K (Menyuk {\it et al.} 1964; Lyons {\it et al.} 1962; Tomiyasu {\it et al.} 2004). The incommensurate-commensurate or lock-in transition occurs around 15 K without changing much the $q$-value (Funahashi {\it et al.} 1987). As shown in the left panel of Fig. \ref{CoCr2O4}, the spiral plane on which the rotating component of spin lies is the (001) plane, while the spontaneous magnetization $(M)$ directs along the [001] or equivalent directions. Then, according to the spin current model [Eq. (\ref{SpinCurrent})], the spontaneous polarization vector is expected to lie along the axis perpendicular to the [001] $M$ direction (see the left panel of Fig. \ref{CoCr2O4}).

\begin{figure}[bt]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.99\textwidth]{Figure5.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{(Online version in colour) Magnetic field dependence of (a) magnetization and (b) electric polarization measured for CoCr$_2$O$_4$ above (27 K) and below (18 K) the ferroelectric transition temperature ($T_{\rm s} = 26$ K). For measurements of polarization, the magnetic field was scanned between $+H_{\rm c}$ and $-H_{\rm c}$, for each magnetoelectrically-cooled state prepared with $(E_{\rm c}, H_{\rm c})$ and $(E_{\rm c}, -H_{\rm c})$, as represented by closed and open circles. $E_{\rm c}$ (=400 kVm$^{-1}$) and $H_{\rm c}$ (=0.5 T) stand for the cooling electric and magnetic fields, respectively. The inset to (a) shows the temperature dependence of spontaneous polarization in the cases of the magnetoelectric cooling with positive and negative $E_{\rm c}$. In the left panels, the crystal and magnetic structure of CoCr$_2$O$_4$ and the plausible clamping process of the ferromagnetic and polarization domain walls are indicated (see text). Reproduced from Ref. (Yamasaki {\it et al.} 2006).}
\label{CoCr2O4}
\end{figure}

The inset to Fig. \ref{CoCr2O4}(a) shows the temperature dependence of polarization $(P)$, which was deduced from the pyroelectric current in zero electric- and zero magnetic-field warming after the  magnetoelectric (ME) cooling procedure (Yamasaki {\it et al.} 2006). The $P$ shows the onset at $T_{\rm s}$ ($=26$ K). The sign of the $P$ was confirmed to coincide with that of the poling electric field $E_{\rm c}$ applied in the ME cooling procedure. Thus, the observed $P$ is the spontaneous polarization in the ferroelectric phase below $T_{\rm S}$, irrespective of the spin spiral state being commensurate or incommensurate (The tiny anomaly of temperature variation of $P$ is due to the lock-in transition of the conical state at $T_{\rm C-IC}=15$ K).

We show in Fig. \ref{CoCr2O4}(b) the magnetic field dependence of $P$ at selected temperatures (18 K and 27 K) in comparison with the conventional magnetization curve [Fig. \ref{CoCr2O4}(a)]. Prior to the magnetic field scan, the $P$ direction could be completely determined by the direction of the cooling electric field ($E_c=400$ kV/m) in the ME cooling procedure ($H_{\rm c}= 0.5$ T), as shown in the inset. Then the magnetic field was scanned between $+H_{\rm c}$ and $-H_{\rm c}$. As clearly seen in Fig. \ref{CoCr2O4}(b), whichever direction of the magnetization is taken as the starting point, the $P$ is always reversed upon the reversal of the magnetization direction [Fig. \ref{CoCr2O4}(a)].

Reflecting this $M-P$ coupling, the synchronized reversal of the spontaneous polarization and magnetization can be confirmed by the sequential scan of the magnetic field between $+0.2$ T and $-0.2$ T, $e.g.,$ at 18 K (not shown) (Yamasaki {\it et al.} 2006). The magnitude of flopped $P$ is almost constant, retaining the full value as observed by the quasi-static measurement. The ferroelectric and ferromagnetic single-domain feature, which was achieved by the ME cooling procedure, is almost perfectly maintained during the magnetic-field induced reversal of the magnetization and the polarization.  In other words, the ferromagnetic and ferroelectric domain walls are anticipated to be always clamped, as schematically depicted in the left panel of Fig. \ref{CoCr2O4}:  The magnetic domain wall, $e.g.,$ of the Bloch type, may sustain the similar spin-spiral habit and hence the direction of the $P$ may also rotate, while keeping the orthogonal relation with $M$.

\begin{figure}[bt]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.99\textwidth]{Figure6.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{(Online version in colour) (a) Schematic crystal structure of Ba$_2$Mg$_2$Fe$_{12}$O$_{22}$. The magnetic structure consists of alternate stacks of L-blocks (brown) and S-blocks (green) having large and small magnetic moments, respectively. (b) Illustration of slanted conical spin structure at $T < 195$ K and $\mu_0 H\sim30$ mT. (c) Oscillating polarization current, cyclic reversal of ferroelectric polarization, against periodically changing magnetic field $(H)$ applied parallel to [100], plotted as a function of time. The drawing at the top schematically shows the temporal change of the spin cone and helicity while oscillating $H$. Reproduced from Ref. (Ishiwata {\it et al.} 2008).}
\label{BMFO}
\end{figure}

Another good example of the conical spin multiferroics is the Y-type hexaferrites, whose structure is schematically shown in Fig. \ref{BMFO}(a). Ba$_2$Mg$_2$Fe$_{12}$O$_{22}$ (BMFO) undergoes the spin-collinear ferrimagnetic transition at 553 K, and then the proper screw spin transition at 195 K, according to the neutron diffraction studies by Momozawa {\it et al.} (Momozawa {\it et al.} 1986). The Fe spins collinearly order within each structural block, such as S and L blocks shown in Fig. \ref{BMFO}(a), but show every 70$^\circ$ rotation in propagating along the $c$ axis. With further lowering temperature below 50 K, the proper screw structure turns into the longitudinal conical structure [Fig. \ref{SS}(e)], exhibiting the ferromagnetic component along the $c$-axis. According to the spin current model, this longitudinal conical spin structure cannot produce the spontaneous $P$, while the local $P$ should show the proper screw like modulation along the $q$-vector $(\| c)$. By applying the external magnetic field to cant the cone axis off the original $c$ axis or $q$ direction, the canted-conical spin state can generate the $P$ normal to both the magnetic $q$-vector $(\| c)$ and the cone axis $\| H$, and hence directing the in-plane direction, as shown in Fig. \ref{BMFO}(b). As the extreme situation for this, when the $H$ is applied normal to the $c$ axis but small enough ($< 0.1$ T in the present case), the simple transverse-conical structure [Fig. \ref{SS}(f)] is realized while maintaining the incommensurate $q$-vector along the $c$ axis. Figure 6(c) shows the synchronous change of the polarization current and polarization when the in-plane $H$ as low as 30 mT is repeatedly reversed (Ishiwata {\it et al.} 2008). The endurable feature of the magnetically induced polarization vector indicates the continuous rotation of the spin cone with the reversal of the in-plane $H$, as schematically shown in the upper panel of Fig. \ref{BMFO}(c). It is worth noting here that a sort of magneto-electric induction as observed in this case can be alternatively interpreted in terms of the spin current mechanism. As described above, the mutually canted spins can generate the spontaneous spin current between the spin sites, and in the present case along the $c$ axis. The temporal variation of this spin current can generate the inverse spin Hall effect (Nagaosa 2008), that is nothing but the ac polarization current as observed.

When the transversely applied $H$ exceeds some critical value, $e.g.,$ around 0.3 T, in the conical state below 50 K, BMFO undergoes the commensurate order with the periodicity of the four (S, L) block units (Ishiwata {\it et al.} 2009). This magnetic state can generate the ferroelectric state with a larger $P$ value ($\sim100$ $\mu$C/m$^2$), although the state is distinct from the above-described lower-$H$ phase. The high-$H$ ferroelectric phase was perhaps identical with that reported for the related hexaferrite Ba$_{0.5}$Sr$_{1.5}$Zn$_2$Fe$_{12}$O$_{22}$ by Kimura {\it et al.} (Kimura {\it et al.} 2005b) as the possible high-temperature multiferroic, and appears to be generic for the Y-type hexaferrites with proper-screw or longitudinal-conical spin order in zero field. According to recent studies (Ishiwata {\it et al.} 2009), this high-$H$ multiferroic state shows the commensurate transverse-conical state, hence shares the common microscopic origin of the $P$ with the lower-$H$ incommensurate state.

\section{Concluding remarks}

For the multiferroics with transverse-spiral spin orders, we have argued two kinds of  dynamical magnetoelectric (ME) effects; the dynamics of multiferroic domain wall (MFDW) and the electromagnon or electrically-driven magnetic resonance. To enhance the ME response on these multiferroics, the consideration of the MFDWs and their dynamics is important. There are several types of multiferroic domain walls (MFDWs) with respect to (1) spin vector chirality and (2) spin spiral $q$-vector. Here, we have shown the case of the mobile MFDWs between the orthogonal spiral plane (vector spin chirality) domains which are nearly degenerate. The magnetic-field tuning of the degeneracy for the case of DyMnO$_3$ with $bc$- or $ab$-plane spin-spiral plane leads to enhancement of the dielectric response due to the movement of MFDW. The MFDW is anticipated to take a shape of the complex curved spin texture comprising the crossover from the $bc$- to $ab$-spiral state. Such a MFDW response can lead also to the unfrozen gigantic magnetocpacitance effect down to low temperatures. Another interesting case is the MDFW bridging over the different-$q$ domains in the high-symmetry ($e.g.,$ triangular-lattice) multiferroics (Seki {\it et al.} 2009).

For the transverse-conical magnet, in which the spontaneous magnetization $M$ can coexist with the induced electric polarization $P$, the clamping of $M$ and $P$ on the domain wall is most important toward the $E$-control of the $M$ domains. In conical magnet CoCr$_2$O$_4$, the low-temperature multiferroic state shows the $P$ reversal upon the $M$ reversal, indicating the strong clamping, although the $P$ value in this system is too small to achieve the $E$-control of the $M$ domain. It has recently been demonstrated that the $E$-control of the weak-ferromagnetic domains in GdFeO$_3$ is partly possible via the $M-P$ clamped MFDW while the two other composite domain walls show no $P-M$ clamping (Tokunaga {\it et al.} 2009). On the other hand, the flexible $P$-direction control with rotating $H$ is possible via the rotation of the spin cones for many cycloidal or conical magnets.

The electromagnon excitation is viewed as the resonant $E$-control of spins. Here, the activation mechanism of the electromagnon is either the $E$-modulation of the exchange interaction of symmetric type or antisymmetric type. As demonstrated for the electromagnon for $R$MnO$_3$ whose multiferroicity originates from the antisymmetric exchange interaction (spin-current or inverse DM model), the symmetric exchange interaction between the noncollinear spins are the likely origin of the $E$-activity. However, we may conversely anticipate the electromagnon excitation in spin-collinear magnets via the $E$-action on the antisymmetric exchange interaction. The ubiquity of the electromagnons in existing versatile magnets is quite likely; this should be a big challenge also in the light of the ultrafast $E$-control of the interacting spins.

Strongly Correlated Electrons (cond-mat.str-el)