\section{Introduction}
\label{sec1}

Protein-protein interactions (PPI) are at the heart of information processing
and signaling in cellular functions. It is natural to present
and analyze these PPI by presenting them as a directed network of
actions between proteins (or network nodes).
The simplest case of action is activation or inhibition
so that such networks can be considered as bi-functional.
The development of related academic databases of PPS networks
with an open public access is a challenging task with
various groups working in this direction
(see e.g.
\cite{pathref1}, \cite{signor}, \cite{pathref2},
\cite{pathref3}, \cite{pathref4}).
A typical example is the SIGNOR directed network of PPI links
for about 4000 proteins of mammals and 12000
bi-functional directed links as reported by  \cite{signor}.

On the scale of the past twenty years, modern society
has created a variety of complex
communication and social
networks including the World Wide Web (WWW), Facebook, Twitter,
Wikipedia. The size of these networks varies from a several millions
for Wikipedia to billions and more for Facebook and WWW.
The description of generic features of these complex networks
can be found e.g. in \cite{dorogovtsev}.

An important tool for the analysis of directed networks
is the construction of the Google matrix of Markov transitions
and related PageRank algorithm invented by Brin and Page
in 1998 for ranking of all WWW sites
(see \cite{brin}, \cite{meyer}).
This approach has been at the foundations of the Google search engine
used world wide. A variety of applications
of Google matrix analysis to various directed networks
is described by \cite{rmp2015}.

Here we apply recently developed extensions of Google matrix analysis,
which include the REduced GOogle MAtriX (REGOMAX) algorithm
\cite{regomax} and  the LInear Response algorithm for
GOogle MAtriX (LIRGOMAX) \cite{lirgomax},
to the SIGNOR PPI network.
The efficiency of these algorithms has
been demonstrated for
Wikipedia networks of politicians \cite{regomax}
and world universities \cite{lirgomax}, \cite{wrwu2017}
and multi product world trade of UN COMTRADE database
\cite{wtn2019}. Thus it is rather natural
to apply these algorithms to PPI networks
which have a typical size being significantly smaller
than Wikipedia and WWW.

From a physical view-point the LIRGOMAX
approach corresponds to a small probability pumping
at a certain network node (or group of nodes) and
absorbing probability at another specific node (or group
of nodes). This algorithm allows first to determine the
most sensitive group of nodes involved in this
pumping-absorption process tracing a pathway connecting two selected proteins.
In a second stage one can then apply the REGOMAX algorithm and obtain
an effective reduced Google matrix, and in particular effective interactions,
for the found subset of most sensitive nodes.
These interactions are due to either direct or indirect pathways
in the global huge network in which is embedded the selected relatively small
subset of nodes.

The REGOMAX and LIRGOMAX algorithms
originate from the scattering theory of nuclear and mesoscopic physics,
field of quantum chaos and linear response theory of
electron transport \cite{regomax}, \cite{lirgomax}.

We point out that the analysis of the SIGNOR PPI network
already found biological applications reported
by \cite{signorcell}, \cite{naturebio}, \cite{petre}, \cite{niko}.
The detailed review of various applications of the PPI
signaling networks is given by \cite{beltrao}.
However, the Google matrix analysis has not been used in these
studies.

The challenging feature of PPI networks is the bi-functionality of
directed links which produce activation or inhibition actions.
While in our previous analysis of SIGNOR network by \cite{zinovyev}
this feature was ignored, here we apply the Ising-PageRank
approach developed in \cite{isingnet}
for opinion formation modeling. In this Ising-type approach
the number of nodes in the PPI network is doubled, with a $(+)$ or
$(-)$ attribute for each protein,
and the links between doubled nodes
are described by $2 \times 2$ matrices
corresponding to activation or inhibition actions.

In this work we apply the LIRGOMAX and REGOMAX
algorithm to the bi-functional PPI network of SIGNOR.
We show that this approach allows to determine the
effective sensitivity with direct and indirect interactions
between a selected pair of proteins. As particular examples we will choose
three protein pairs implicating the
{\it Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)}
which is considered to play an important role in the context of lung cancer
(see e.g. \cite{egfr}, \cite{krasnoyarsk}).

The interest to apply computer science methods,
such as the PageRank algorithm, to PPI networks is growing
(see e.g. the recent review \cite{cowen}) and we hope that the
Google matrix algorithms
described in this work will attract the interest of biologists
working with PPI networks. In addition to the methods described in \cite{cowen}
these algorithms allow to take into account the bi-functional nature
of PPI network links and focus the investigation on a specific group
of proteins taking into account all their direct and indirect interactions
via the global network.

The paper is constructed as follows:
in Section 2 we describe the construction of Google matrix
from links between proteins and related
LIRGOMAX and REGOMAX algorithms, in Section 3 we characterize
data sets and the Ising-PPI-network
for bi-functional interactions between proteins,
results are presented in Section 4
and the conclusion is given in Section 5.
Appendix provides additional matrix data
and executable code for the described algorithms
for the SIGNOR Ising-PPI-network.

The Google matrix data and executive code of described algorithms
are available at http://www.quantware.ups-tlse.fr/QWLIB/google4signornet/ .

\section{Methods of Google matrix analysis}

\iffalse
We give here a short introduction
to the Google matrix methods.
A detailed description can be find in the literature
quoted below. In this section we speak for simplicity in an abstract way
only of a network of $N$ ``nodes'' which may either directly represent
proteins (if the functionality of the interaction is not taken into
account) or proteins with $(+)$ or $(-)$ attribute (if the functionality
of the interaction is taken into account as described in the next section).
Therefore the value of $N$ may be either the number of proteins or twice this
number.
\fi

\subsection{Google matrix construction}

The Google matrix $G$ of $N$ nodes (proteins or proteins with $(+)/(-)$
attribute) is constructed from
the adjacency matrix $A_{ij}$ with element $1$
if node $j$
points to  node $i$ and zero otherwise.
The matrix $G$ has the standard form
$G_{ij} = \alpha S_{ij} + (1-\alpha) / N$
(see \cite{brin}, \cite{meyer}, \cite{rmp2015}),
where $S$ is the matrix of Markov transitions with elements
$S_{ij}=A_{ij}/k_{out}(j)$ and $k_{out}(j)=\sum_{i=1}^{N}A_{ij}\neq 0$
being the  out-degree of node $j$
(number of outgoing links);  $S_{ij}=1/N$ if $j$
has no outgoing links (dangling node).
The parameter $0< \alpha <1$ is known as the damping factor
with the usual value $\alpha=0.85$ \cite{meyer}
which we use here.
For the range $0.5 \leq \alpha \leq 0.95$
the results are not sensitive to $\alpha$ \cite{meyer}, \cite{rmp2015}.
A useful view on this $G$ matrix is given by the concept of
a random surfer, moving with probability $\alpha$ from one node to another
via one of the available directed links
or with a jump probability $(1-\alpha)$ to any node.

The right PageRank eigenvector
of $G$ is the solution of the equation $G P = \lambda P$
for the leading unit eigenvalue $\lambda=1$ \cite{meyer}. The PageRank
$P(j)$ values represent positive probabilities to find a random surfer
on a node $j$ ($\sum_j P(j)=1$).
All nodes can be ordered by decreasing probability $P$
numbered by  PageRank index $K=1,2,...N$ with a maximal probability at $K=1$
and minimal at $K=N$. The numerical computation
of $P(j)$ is done efficiently with the PageRank iteration
algorithm described by \cite{meyer}. The idea of this algorithm is simply
to start with some initial, sum normalized, vector $P^{(0)}$ of positive
entries, e.g. being $1/N$ for simplicity, and then to iterate
$P^{(n+1)}=G\,P^{(n)}$ which typically converges after $n=150-200$ iterations
(for $\alpha=0.85$).

It is also useful to consider
the original network with inverted direction of links.
After inversion the Google matrix $G^*$ is constructed via
the same procedure with $G^* P^*= P^*$. The matrix $G^*$
has its own PageRank vector
$P^*(j)$ called CheiRank \cite{cheirank}, \cite{rmp2015}.
Its values give probabilities to find a random surfer of a given node
and they can be again ordered
in a decreasing order with CheiRank index $K^*$
with highest  $P^*$ at $K^*=1$ and smallest at $K^*=N$.
On average, the high values of $P$ ($P^*$) correspond to nodes
with many ingoing (outgoing) links \cite{meyer}, \cite{rmp2015}.

\subsection{Reduced Google matrix (REGOMAX) algorithm}

The REGOMAX algorithm is described in detail
by  \cite{regomax,zinovyev,wrwu2017}. It allows to
compute efficiently a ``reduced Google matrix''
$\GR$ of size $N_r \times N_r$
that captures
the full contributions of direct and indirect pathways appearing
in the full Google matrix $G$ between $N_r$ nodes of interest
selected from a huge global network with $N \gg N_r$ nodes.
For these $N_r$ nodes
their PageRank probabilities are the same
as for the global network with $N$ nodes,
up to a constant multiplicative factor taking into account that
the sum of PageRank probabilities over $N_r$
nodes is unity.
The computation of $\GR$ determines
a decomposition of $\GR$ into matrix components that clearly distinguish
direct from indirect interactions:
$\GR = \Grr + \Gpr + \Gqr$ \cite{regomax}.
Here $\Grr$ is given by the direct links between the selected
$N_r$ nodes in the global $G$ matrix with $N$ nodes. We note that
 $\Gpr$ is rather close to
the matrix in which each column is approximately proportional to
the PageRank vector $P_r$, satisfying the condition that the
PageRank probabilities of $\GR$ are
the same as for $G$ (up to a constant multiplier due to normalization).
Hence, in contrast to $\Gqr$, $\Gpr$ doesn't give much new
information about direct and indirect links between selected nodes.

The most interesting role is played by $\Gqr$, which takes
into account all indirect links between
selected nodes happening due to multiple pathways via
the global network of nodes $N$ (see~\cite{regomax}).
The matrix  $\Gqr = \Gqrd + \Gqrnd$ has diagonal ($\Gqrd$)
and non-diagonal ($\Gqrnd$) parts with $\Gqrnd$
describing indirect interactions between selected nodes.
The exact formulas for all three components of $\GR$ are given
in \cite{regomax}. It is also useful
to compute the weights $\WR$, $\Wpr$,
$\Wrr$, $\Wqr$
of $\GR$ and its 3 matrix components $\Gpr$, $\Grr$, $\Gqr$
given by the sum of all its elements divided by the matrix size $N_r$.
Due to the column sum normalization of $\GR$ we obviously have
$\WR=\Wrr+\Wpr+\Wqr=1$.

We note that the matrix elements of $\Gqr$
may have negative values (only the full reduced matrix
$\GR$ should have positive elements;
$\Grr$ also has only positive matrix elements)
but these negative values are found to be small
for the Ising-PPI-networks
and do not play a significant role.
A similar situation for Wikipedia networks
is discussed by \cite{regomax}, \cite{lirgomax}.

\subsection{LIRGOMAX algorithm}

The detained description of the LIRGOMAX algorithm
is given by \cite{lirgomax}. It performs an infinitely weak
$\varepsilon$-probability injection (pumping) at one node
(a protein or a protein with $(+)/(-)$ attribute)
and absorption at another node of interest. This process is described
by the modified PageRank iteration $P^{(n+1)}=G\,F(\varepsilon,P^{(n)})$
where the vector valued function $F(\varepsilon,P)$ has the
components $P(i)+\varepsilon$ for $i$ being the index of the injection/pumping node,
$P(j)-\varepsilon$ for $j$ being the index of the absorption node
and simply $P(k)$ for all other nodes $k$. In this way the vector $F(\varepsilon,P)$
is also sum normalized if $P$ is sum normalized and obviously $F(0,P)=P$ is
the identity operation.
In \cite{lirgomax} a more general version of $F(\varepsilon,P)$ was considered
with potentially different prefactors for the $\varepsilon$ contributions,
injection/absorption at possibly more than two nodes and an
additional renormalization factor to restore the sum normalization (which
is automatic in the simple version). However, for
the applications in this work the above given simple version of $F(\varepsilon,P)$
is sufficient.

In principle one can solve iteratively the above
modified PageRank iteration formula which converges at the same rate as
the usual PageRank iteration algorithm and provides a modified
$\varepsilon$-depending PageRank $P(\varepsilon)$. Then one can compute
the linear response vector
$P_1=dP(\varepsilon)/d\varepsilon|_{\varepsilon=0}=\lim_{\varepsilon\to 0} [P(\varepsilon)-P_0]/\varepsilon$
 where $P_0$ is the PageRank
obtained for $\varepsilon=0$. However the naive direct evaluation of this limit
is numerically not stable in the limit $\varepsilon\to 0$.
Fortunately as shown by \cite{lirgomax} it is possible
to compute $P_1$ directly
in an accurate and efficient way by solving the inhomogeneous PageRank
equation
\begin{equation}
\label{eq_PGinhom}
P_1=G\,P_1+V_0\quad,\quad V_0=G\,W_0
\end{equation}
where the vector $W_0$ has only two non-zero components for the two
particular injection or absorption nodes $W_0(i)=1$ or $W_0(j)=-1$
respectively. Therefore a more explicit expression for the vector
$V_0$ appearing in (\ref{eq_PGinhom}) is
$V_0(k)=G_{ki}-G_{kj}$ (for all nodes $k$). We mention that
the three vectors $P_1$, $V_0$ and $W_0$ are orthogonal to the vector
$E^T=(1,\ldots,1)$ composed of unit entries, i.e.
$\sum_k P_1(k)=\sum_k W_0(k)=\sum_k V_0(k)=0$. Furthermore, all of these
vectors, especially $P_1$
have {\em real} positive or negative entries (note that
in general eigenvectors of a non-symmetric real matrix may be complex).

A formal solution of the inhomogeneous PageRank equation is:
$P_1=\sum_{n=0}^\infty G^n\,V_0=({\bf 1}-G)^{-1}\,V_0$
which is well defined since $V_0$, when expanded in the basis
of (generalized) eigenvectors of $G$, does NOT have a contribution
of $P_0$ (the only eigenvector of $G$ with eigenvalue $1$) such that
the singularity of the matrix inverse does not constitute a problem.
Of course numerically, we compute $P_1$ in a different way, as described
by \cite{lirgomax} one can iterate the equation
$P_1^{(n+1)}=G\,P_1^{(n)}+V_0$ with $P_1^{(0)}=0$ which converges with the
same rate as the usual PageRank iteration.

We note that a propagator somewhat similar to the above expression
$P_1=({\bf 1}-G)^{-1}\,V_0$,
namely $\tilde{P} = ({\bf 1} - \gamma G)^{-1}\,V_{init}$,
has been used in \cite{physrevnet} as the ImpactRank of specific nodes
related to an initial probability localized on a certain initial node
described by the initial vector $V_{init}$. However, this ImpactRank
used $\gamma<1$
so that there was no singularity in denominator
and also $\tilde{P}$ represented a certain
stationary probability distribution while $P_1$ represents a deviation
from the stationary distribution of PageRank probability $P$.
In fact the propagator discussed in \cite{cowen}
corresponds to the ImpactRank case \cite{physrevnet}
with $\gamma <1$ thus being qualitatively different
from the LIRGOMAX propagator considered here.

In a similar as the PageRank $P_0$ is characterized by the index $K$ we
introduce the index $K_L$ by ordering $|P_1|$ such that $K_L=1$ corresponds
to the node with largest value of $|P_1|$ and $K_L=N$ to the node with
smallest value of $|P_1|$.
Once $P_1$ is computed for the pair of chosen injection/absorption nodes
we determine the 20 top nodes with strongest negative values of $P_1$ and
further 20 top nodes with strongest positive values of $P_1$ which
constitute a subset of 40 nodes which are the most significant
nodes participating in the pathway between the pumping node $i$ and
absorbing node $j$. We also require that these two particular nodes $i$ and
$j$ belong to this subset. If this is not automatically the case we replace
the node at total position 20 (position 20 for strongest negative values
of $P_1$) with the absorption node $j$ and/or the node at total position 40
(position 20 for strongest positive values of $P_1$) with the injection node
$i$. This situation happens once for the absorption node of the third example
below which has a very low ranking position $K_L\approx 2000$ for $|P_1|$.

In general from a physical/biological point of view we indeed expect that
the two particular injection/absorption nodes belong automatically to the
selected subset of most sensitive nodes. However, there is no simple
or general mathematical argument for this.

Using this subset of top nodes in the $K_L$ ranking
we then apply the REGOMAX algorithm
to compute the reduced Google matrix and its components and in
particular we determine the effective direct and indirect interactions of this
reduced network.
The advantage of the application of LIRGOMAX at the initial stage
is that it provides an automatic and more rigorous
procedure to determine an interesting
subset of protein nodes related to the pumping between nodes $i$ and $j$
instead of using an arbitrary heuristic choice for such a subset.

\section{Data sets and Ising-PPI-network construction}

We use the open public SIGNOR PPI network \cite{signor}
(April 2019 release for human, mouse and rat).
This network contains $N=4341$ nodes (proteins)
and $N_\ell = 12547$ directed hyperlinks between nodes.
Each protein (node) is described by their name and identifier.

A new interesting feature of this PPI directed network is that its hyperlinks
have activation and inhibition actions.
For some links the functionality is unclear and
then they are considered to be neutral.
This feature rises an interesting mathematical
challenge for the Google matrix description
of such bi-functional networks.
To meet this challenge we use the Ising-PageRank approach
developed by \cite{isingnet} for a model of opinion formation
on social networks. In this approach each node is doubled getting
two components marked by $(+)$ and $(-)$.
The activation links point to the $(+)$ components
and inhibition links point to the $(-)$ components. Such transitions
between doubled nodes are described by $2\times 2$ block matrices
$\sigma_+$ ($\sigma_-$) matrices with entries 1 (0) in the first row
and 0 (1) in the second row
as for Ising spin-1/2 (see details described in Appendix).
A neutral transition is described by $2\times2$ matrix $\sigma_0$
with all elements being $1/2$.
Thus for this Ising-network (doubled-size network)
we have doubled number of node $N = 8682$
and the total number of hyperlinks being $N_\ell = 27266$;
among them there are $N_{act} = 14944$ activation links,
$N_{inh} = 7978$ inhibition links and
$N_{neut} = 4344$ neutral links ($N_\ell = N_{act} + N_{inh} + N_{neut}$).
From this weighted Ising-PPI-network with $N_\ell = 27266$
nodes we construct the Google matrix
following the standard rules described by \cite{meyer}, \cite{rmp2015}
and also given above.

Below we apply the Google matrix analysis
taking into account the bi-functionality PPI
and illustrate the efficiency
of the LIRGOMAX and REGOMAX algorithms
for the SIGNOR Ising-PPI-network.

The details of Ising-PPI-network construction,
its main statistical properties
and an executable code for the described algorithms
are provided in Appendix
and in \cite{ourwebpage}.
Below we discuss the results obtained with
the LIRGOMAX and REGOMAX algorithms
for three examples of specific pathways between two specific proteins.

\section{Results}

Here we present results obtained with LIRGOMAX and
REGOMAX algorithms for
pathways between several pairs of selected proteins.

\subsection{Case of  pathway EGFR - JAK2 proteins}

\begin{table}
\begin{center}
{
\relsize{-1}
\caption{Top 20 nodes of strongest negative values of
$P_1$ (index number $i=1,\ldots,20$) and top 20 nodes of strongest
positive values of $P_1$ (index number $i=21,\ldots,40$)
with $P_1$ being created as the linear response of the PageRank of
the Ising-PPI-network
with injection (or pumping)  at {\it  EGFR P00533 (+)}
and absorption at {\it JAK2 O60674 (-)}; $K_L$ is the ranking index
obtained by ordering $|P_1|$ and $K$ is the usual PageRank index
obtained by ordering the PageRank $P_0$.
}
\label{table1}
\include{table1}}
\end{center}
\end{table}

As a first example we choose the node {\it EGFR P00533 (+)} for
injection (pumping) and {\it JAK2 O60674 (-)} for
absorption. It is known that
mutations affecting the protein EGFR expression or activity
could result in lung cancer (see e.g. \cite{egfr};
\cite{krasnoyarsk}). This protein
interacts with the protein JAK2
whose mutations have been implicated in various types of cancer.
We argue that the injection (pumping) at
{\it EGFR P00533 (+)} and absorption at {\it JAK2 O60674 (-)}
should involve certain variations of the
PageRank probability, represented by $P_1$,
showing interactions between various proteins
actively participating in the pathway from
{\it EGFR P00533 (+)} to {\it JAK2 O60674 (-)}.
The pumping process can be viewed as a result of
disease development and absorption as a certain mutation
of this disease into another one.

\begin{figure}[h!
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{fig1}}
\caption{Linear response vector $P_1$ of PageRank for the Ising-PPI-network
with injection (or pumping) at {\it EGFR P00533 (+)}
and absorption at {\it  JAK2 O60674 (-)}. Here $K_L$ is the ranking index
obtained by ordering $|P_1|$ from maximal value at $K_L=1$
down to minimal value. Top panel shows $|P_1|$ versus $K_L$ in
a double logarithmic representation for all $N$ nodes.
Bottom panel shows a zoom of $P_1$ versus $K_L$ for $K_L \le 10^3$
in a double logarithmic representation with sign;
blue data points correspond
to $P_1>0$ and red data points to $P_1<0$.
}
\label{fig1}
\end{figure}

The global PageRank indices of these two nodes are
$K= 90$ (PageRank probability $P(90)= 0.0009633$ ) for  {\it EGFR P00533 (+)} and
$K=470$ (PageRank probability $P(470)= 0.0003444$) for {\it JAK2 O60674 (-)}.
As described above in the LIRGOMAX computations we choose the vector
in $V_0$ which appears in the inhomogeneous PageRank equation
(\ref{eq_PGinhom}) as $V_0=G\,W_0$
with $W_0(K=90)=+1$, $W_0(K=470)=-1$ and $W_0(K)=0$ for all other
values of the Kindex $K$.
We remind that both $W_0$ and $V_0$ are orthogonal to the left
leading eigenvector $E^T=(1,\ldots,1)$ of $G$ according to the
general description of the LIRGOMAX algorithm given above and
in \cite{lirgomax}.

For comparison we let us note that the top 4 PageRank nodes are
$K=1$ ($P(1)=0.003041$) for {\it CASP3	P42574 (+)},
$K=2$ ($P(2)=0.002821$) for {\it NOTCH1	P46531 (+)},
$K=3$ ($P(3)=0.002433$) for {\it PIK3CD	O00329 (-)},
$K=4$ ($P(4)=0.002413$) for $\;\;\;\;\;\;$ {\it CTNNB1	P35222 (-)}
(other values/data are available at \cite{ourwebpage}).

Similar to the two Wikipedia examples analyzed by \cite{lirgomax}
the LIRGOMAX algorithm selects the
proteins mostly affected by injection/absorption process
with 20 most positive (EGFR block) and 20 most negative
(JAK2 block) values of $P_1$ shown in Table~\ref{table1}.
Here the pumped protein {\it EGFR P00533 (+)} is on the third position
in its block of positive $P_1$ values ($i=23$) and with $K_L =11$
(where $K_L$ is the ranking index obtained by ordering the components
of $|P_1|$) while the protein with absorption {\it JAK2 O60674 (-)}
has the second position in its block of negative $P_1$ values ($i=2$)
with $K_L=4$. Thus these two nodes are not at the first positions in
their respective blocks but still they are placed at very high positions.

\begin{figure}[h!
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{fig2}}
\caption{Reduced Google matrix components $\GR$, $\Gpr$,
$\Grr$ and $\Gqr$ for Ising-PPI-network and the
subgroup of nodes given in Table~\ref{table1} corresponding to
injection at {\it EGFR P00533 (+)}
and absorption at {\it JAK2 O60674 (-)} (see text for explanations). The
axis labels correspond to the index  $i$ used in Table~\ref{table1}.
The relative weights of these components are $\Wpr=0.761$, $\Wrr=0.220$,
 and $\Wqr=0.019$.
The values of the color bar correspond to
$\sgn(g)(|g|/\max|g|)^{1/4}$ where $g$ is the shown
matrix element value. The exponent $1/4$ amplifies
small values of $g$ for a better visibility.
}
\label{fig2}
\end{figure}

The dependence of $|P_1|$ of the index $K_L$ is shown
in the top panel of Figure~\ref{fig1}. The decay of
$|P_1|$ is relatively slow for $K_L \leq 40$
followed by a more rapid drop for $K_L > 40$.
The bottom panel shows the dependence of
positive (blue) and negative (red)
values of $P_1$ on $K_L$. We note that the top absolute values
$|P_1|$ for blue and red components have
comparable values being of the order of $|P_1| \sim 0.1$
for approximately $K_L \leq 40$. However, in this range
the number of positive (blue)
values of $P_1$ is significantly smaller
compared to the number of negative (red) values of $P_1$.
This point can also be seen from the column of $K_L$ values
in Table~\ref{table1}.
Another feature visible from Table~\ref{table1}
is that the number of proteins with negative component $(-)$
is significantly smaller than those with a positive component $(+)$
($5$ for $1 \leq i \leq 20$ and $4$ for
$21 \leq i \leq 40$. We return to
the properties of positive and negative components a bit later.

\begin{figure}[h!
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{fig3}}
\caption{Same as in Fig.~\ref{fig2} but for the matrix $\Grr+\Gqrnd$,
where $\Gqrnd$ is obtained from $\Gqr$ by putting its diagonal
elements at zero; the weight of these two components is
$W_{rr+qrnd}=0.227$.
}
\label{fig3}
\end{figure}

After the selection of most significant 40 nodes of the pathway
between the two injection/absorption proteins (see Table~\ref{table1})
we apply the REGOMAX algorithm
which determines all matrix elements of Markov transitions
between these 40 nodes including all direct and indirect pathways
via the large global Ising-PPI-networks network with 8682 nodes.

The reduced Google matrix $\GR$ and its three components
$\Gpr$, $\Grr$, $\Gqr$ are shown in Figure~\ref{fig2}
for proteins of Table~\ref{table1} ($1 \leq i \leq 40$).
The weight of the component $\Gpr$ is $\Wpr=0.761$
being not so far from unity
but this value is below $\Wpr \approx 0.95$
appearing usually in Wikipedia networks
\cite{regomax}; \cite{lirgomax}.
We attribute this to a significantly smaller number of links
per node being $\ell = N_\ell/N \approx 3.1$
for the Ising-PPI-network
while for the English Wikipedia network of 2017 we have
$\ell \approx 22.5$ \cite{lirgomax}.
Indeed, the weight $\Wrr = 0.220$
of direct transitions of $\Grr$ is significantly larger than the
corresponding values for the Wikipedia case with $\Wrr \approx 0.04$.
However, the weights $\Wqr = 0.019$ are comparable for both
reduced networks.

The matrix structure of direct transitions $\Grr$  has a clear two block
structure with dominant transitions inside each block
associated to EGFR and JAK2 with only 4 significant matrix
elements from the EGFR to the JAK2 block. These matrix elements
correspond to links from EGFR ($\pm$) to JAK2 (+) and STAT1(+)
and have the same value $g\approx 0.0167$
while all other matrix elements (of this EGFR to JAK2 block) are very small
with the value $g \approx 1.73 \times 10^{-5}$
corresponding to the minimal value $(1-\alpha)/N$ in $G$ related to the
damping factor $\alpha=0.85$.

The matrix $\Gpr$ (which is exactly of rank 1) has a very simple structure
with all columns being (approximately) proportional to the (local) PageRank
of $\GR$ (which is itself proportional to the global PageRank projected
onto the subset of 40 nodes) and one clearly sees that the strong
horizontal red lines correspond
to index positions $i$ of Table~\ref{table1} where the corresponding
index $K$ is quite low below $\sim 100$ corresponding to a relatively high
PageRank position. The full reduced matrix $\GR$ is numerically dominated by
$\Gpr$ (but less clearly as for typical Wikipedia cases) and has at
first sight a similar structure as $\Gpr$ but with somewhat smaller
values. However, some of the strongest direct links (from $\Grr$) are also
visible.
Similarly to the Wikipedia network of politicians as discussed in
\cite{regomax} both matrix components $\GR$ and $\Gpr$ are not very
usefully to identify the indirect links.

The indirect links are visible in the matrix $\Gqr$. As explained
and shown mathematically
in \cite{regomax} they correspond to pathways where a given
node $i_1$ of the
small subset points to a certain node outside the subset (in the big
surrounding PPI network) which itself points eventually to another node
outside the subset and comes after a finite number of iterations finally back
to a different node $i_2$ inside the subset. This provides an indirect link
from $i_1$ to $i_2$ and the weight or strength of this indirect link is
characterized by the value of the matrix element
$(\Gqr)_{i_2,i_1}$. According to Figure~\ref{fig2} there are now
also significant interactions between the two blocks of EGFR and JAK2
for the matrix $\Gqr$, sometimes with negative values (note that
the matrix elements of $\Gqr$ may be negative). Figure~\ref{fig3} shows
the the sum of the two components $\Grr+\Gqrnd$ ($\Gqrnd$ corresponds to
$\Gqr$ without its diagonal elements) which confirms this observation.
Actually, we consider that the elements of $\Grr+\Gqrnd$ describe best
the combined direct and indirect links for the given subset.

Due to the contribution of indirect transitions
there are additional transitions between these two blocks
where the four strongest additional elements of $\Gqr$ have values
$g=0.0106$ ({\it GRB2 P62993 (+)} to {\it JAK2 O60674 (+)});
$g=0.0099$ ({\it GRB2 P62993 (+)} to {\it STAT1 P42224 (+)});
$g=  0.0059$ ({\it GAB1 Q13480 (+) } to {\it GTF2I P78347 (+)});
$g=  0.0039$ ({\it PIK3R1 P27986 (+) } to {\it GTF2I P78347 (+)}).
There are also 11 additional transitions
with $g > 0.1$. Thus even if the weight of $\Gqr$
is not high it provides important new indirect
interactions between proteins from the EGFR block to the JAK2 block.

\begin{figure}[h!
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{fig4}}
\caption{Network of friends for the subgroup of nodes
given in Table~\ref{table1}
corresponding to injection at {\it EGFR P00533 (+)}
and absorption at {\it JAK2 O60674 (-)} constructed from the matrix
$\Grr+\Gqrnd$ using 4 top (friends) links
per column (see text for explanations).
}
\label{fig4}
\end{figure}

The situation is even more striking when we consider
the transitions from the JAK2 block to the EGFR block. There are no direct
links between these blocks in this direction from the global network
but due to the construction
of the Google matrix described above there are still numerically very small
values $g$ for the matrix elements of $\Grr$ due to dangling nodes
(nodes with no outgoing links)
with $g=1/N\approx 1.15 \times 10^{-4}$ (in certain columns)
or due to the damping factor term
$(1-\alpha)/N\approx 1.73 \times 10^{-5}$ (for the other columns).
On the other side concerning the indirect
links described by $\Gqr$ we find rather significant
transitions from the JAK2 block to the EGFR block with the four largest
values:
$g \approx 0.0122$ ({\it CCR2 P41597 (+)} to {\it  EGFR P00533 (-)} and to
{\it ESR1 P03372 (+)}); $g \approx 0.006 $
 ({\it CSF2RA/CSF2RB	SIGNOR-C212 (+)}  to
{\it ESR1	P03372 (+)} and to {\it PIK3R1	P27986 (+)}).
There are also 9 additional transitions with $g >0.001$.
Complete data files for the matrix elements of matrix components
(for all examples) are available at \cite{ourwebpage}.

It is convenient to present
the interactions between proteins, generated by
the matrix elements of the sum of
two components $\Grr+\Gqrnd$ from Figure~\ref{fig3},
in the form of a network shown in Figure~\ref{fig4}.
To construct the network of effective friends,
we select first five initial nodes which are placed
on a (large) circle: the two nodes with
injection and absorption ({\it EGFR (+)} (injection node, blue)
and {\it JAK2 (-)} (absorption node, olive)
and three other nodes with a rather top position
in the $K_L$ ranking:
{\it JAK2 (+)} (related to {\it JAK2 (-)} with $K_L=1$, $i=1$, red),
{\it GRB2 (+)} (with $K_L=2$, $i=21$, green) and
{\it FES (+)} (with $K_L=3$, $i=22$, cyan).
For each of these five initial
nodes we determine four friends
by the criterion of largest matrix elements (in modulus) in the same
column, i.e. corresponding to the four strongest links
from the initial node to
the potential friends. The friend nodes found in this way are added to the
network and drawn on circles of medium size around their initial node
(if they do not already belong
to the initial set of 5 top nodes). The links from the initial nodes to their
friends are drawn as thick black arrows. For each of the newly added nodes
(level 1 friends) we continue to determine the
four strongest friends (level 2 friends) which are drawn on small circles and
added to the network (if there are not already present from a previous
level). The corresponding links from level 1 friends to level 2 friends are
drawn as thin red arrows.

Each node is marked by the
index $i$ from the first column of Table~\ref{table1}.
The colors of the nodes are essentially red for nodes with strong negative
values of $P_1$ (corresponding to the index $i=1,\ldots,20$) and blue
for nodes with strong positive values of $P_1$ (for $i=21,\ldots,40$).
Only for three of the initial nodes we choose different colors which
are olive for {\it JAK (-)}, green for {\it GRB2 (+)} and cyan for
{\it FES (+)}. This procedure generates the directed friendship
network shown in Figure~\ref{fig4}.

The obtained network of Figure~\ref{fig4} has
a rather clear separation between the two blocks related to EGFR
(mainly blue nodes) and JAK2 (mainly red nodes).
There is only one link of first level (black arrow)
from the EGFR block (GRB2 (+)) to the JAK2 block
(JAK2 (+)), Of course, there are other strong
direct transitions from the EGFR block to the JAK2 block as described
above, but these links are weaker than the 4 closest friends and therefore
they do not appear in the network structure of Figure~\ref{fig4}.
However, we see that there are many links between the two
blocks on the secondary level of red arrows.

The block of JAK2 (red nodes) is rather compact with
only 6 nodes (one red node
at $i=20$ is more linked to the EGFR block).
In contrast the EGFR block contains 15 (blue) nodes
showing that this group of proteins
is characterized by broader and more
extensive interconnections.
We think that such a network presentation
provides a useful qualitative image of the effective interactions between
the two groups of proteins.

Network figures, for this example and the other two examples discussed below,
constructed in the same way using the other matrix components
$\GR$, $\Grr$ or $\Gqr$ (instead of $\Grr+\Gqrnd$)
or using strongest matrix elements in rows (instead of columns)
to determine follower networks are available at \cite{ourwebpage}.

\subsection{Magnetization of proteins of EGFR - JAK2 pathway}

In the Ising-PPI-network each protein is described by two
components which can be considered as spin up or down state.
The PageRank probability of a protein
is given by the sum of probabilities of its two components
with $P(j) = P_+(j) + P_-(j)$. It can be shown that due to the structure of
the matrix transitions given by the matrices
$\sigma_+ , \sigma_- , \sigma_0$
the sum of probabilities $P(j)$ for a given protein $j$
is the same  as for the directed PPI network
without doubling (see  Appendix).
Thus the activation or inhibition
links in the Ising-PPI-network
of doubled size only redistribute PageRank probability
for a given protein between up and down components.
The physical meaning of these up and down component probabilities
$P_+$ and $P_-$ is qualitatively related to the
fact that on average the PageRank probability $P$ of a node
is proportional to the number of ingoing links.
Thus $P_+$ is proportional to the number of ingoing
activation links and  $P_-$ is proportional to the number of ingoing
inhibition links. Thus we can characterize
each node by its normalized magnetization
$M(j)=(P_+(j)-P_-(j))/(P_+(j)+P_-(j))$.
By definition $-1 \leq M(j) \leq 1$.
Big positive values of $M$ mean that
this protein has mainly ingoing activation links
while big negative values mean that
this protein has mainly inhibition ingoing links.
In principle, we can also study the magnetization
of CheiRank probability of proteins
given by $ M^*(j)=(P^*_+(j)-P^*_-(j))/(P^*_+(j)+P^*_-(j))$
but we keep this for further investigations.
We note that $M(j)$ and $ M^*(j)$ represent the normalized
values which are independent of the total probability
$P(j), P^*(j)$. Thus the magnetization of nodes
of the reduced Google matrix remains the same as in the global network.

\begin{table}
\begin{center}
{
\relsize{-1}
\caption{Group of 38 nodes of the single protein network obtained
from the group of Table~\ref{table1} by removing the $(+)$ and $(-)$
attributes. $K$ ($K^*$) represent the local rank indices obtained from
the PageRank (CheiRank) ordering of the single protein network.
The index $i$ is the same as in Table~\ref{table1} where the two values
$i=2$ and $i=26$ do not appear here since they correspond to the two nodes
where both components $(+)$ and $(-)$ are present in Table~\ref{table1}.}
\label{table2}
\include{table2}}
\end{center}
\end{table}

We take all different 38 proteins
present in Table~\ref{table1}
and consider their magnetization
(this number
is smaller than 40 since for few
proteins both $(+)$ or $(-)$ components are present in this Table).
All these 38 proteins are listed in Table~\ref{table2} with their local
PageRank and CheiRank indices $K$ and $K^*$.
The distribution of these 38 proteins
on the PageRank-CheiRank plane is shown in Figure~\ref{fig5} and the colors of
the square boxes presents the values of $M(j)$ (see caption of
Figure~\ref{fig5}).
The three proteins with the strongest positive magnetizations are
{\it PLCG1 P19174} ($M=0.8959$),
{\it GRB2 P62993} ($M=0.8899$),
{\it FES P07332} ($M=0.8719$)
and with the strongest negative values are
{\it BCR P11274} ($M= -0.7799$),
{\it PIK3CD O00329} ($M= -0.7328$),
{\it PRMT5 O14744} ($M=  -0.3527$).
In total there are only 5 proteins of Table~\ref{table2}
with negative magnetization values.
We attribute this to the fact that the number of inhibition
links is smaller than the number of activation ones.
We think that the magnetization of proteins can provide
new interesting information about the functionality of proteins.

\begin{figure}[h!
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{fig5}}
\caption{PageRank ``magnetization''
$M(j)=(P_+(j)-P_-(j))/(P_+(j)+P_-(j))$ of proteins of Table~\ref{table2}
shown on the PageRank-CheiRank plane $(K,K^*)$ of local indices;
here $j$ represents a protein node in the initial single protein network
and $P_{\pm}(j)$ are the PageRank components of the Ising-PPI-network
(see text).
The values of the color bar correspond to $M/\max{|M|}$ with
$\max|M|=0.896$ being the maximal value of $|M(j)|$ for the shown group of
proteins.}
\label{fig5}
\end{figure}

\subsection{Examples of other protein  pathways}

We also consider two other proteins pairs for injection (pumping) and
absorption which we analyzed in the same way.
Again we compute the vector
$V_0=G\,W_0$ where $W_0$ has only two non-zero components being $1$
at the pumping node and $-1$ at the absorption node, we solve the
inhomogeneous PageRank equation (\ref{eq_PGinhom}) to obtain the linear
response vector $P_1$ from which we determine a set of 40 nodes
composed with 20 strongest negative and 20 strongest positive values.
In order to ensure that the two initial injection and absorption nodes also
belong to this subset we eventually replace the node at position 20
for strongest positive and/or negative values with the injection and/or
absorption node respectively.
Here we only show and discuss the list of the obtained subsets and the
effective network schemes corresponding to Table~\ref{table1}
and Figure~\ref{fig4} for these two examples while Tables and Figures
analogous to Table~\ref{table2}, Figures~\ref{fig1},
\ref{fig2}, \ref{fig3}, \ref{fig5} are given in Appendix.

First we discuss the case of injection at
{\it MAP2K1 Q02750 (+)} and absorption at {\it EGFR P00533 (-)}.
The protein MAP2K1 is a member of the dual-specificity protein kinase family
that acts an integration point for multiple biochemical signals.
There is no direct link between  MAP2K1 and EGFR.
The global PageRank indices of these two nodes are
$K= 84$ (PageRank probability $P(84)= 0.0009794$ ) for
{\it MAP2K1 Q02750 (+)} and $K=136$ (PageRank probability $P(136)= 0.0007817$)
for {\it EGFR P00533 (-)}. The subset of most sensitive proteins
obtained from the LIRGOMAX algorithm for
this protein pair is given in Table~\ref{table3}.
These proteins are different from those of Table~\ref{table1}.
We note now that the injection and absorption proteins
have lower positions in the rank indices $K_L$ and $i$ of Table~\ref{table3}.
We attribute this somehow unexpected result of the $P_1$ ranking to
rather nontrivial vortex flows on the Ising-PPI-network.

\begin{table}
\begin{center}
{
\relsize{-1}
\caption{Same as in Table~\ref{table1}
but for injection (pumping) at {\it MAP2K1 Q02750 (+)}
and absorption at {\it EGFR P00533 (-)}.
}
\label{table3}
\include{table3}}
\end{center}
\end{table}

The friendship network for this case is shown in Figure~\ref{fig6}
(the construction method is the same as Figure~\ref{fig4}).
The 5 proteins of the initial large circle are
EGFR (-) (olive),
FES (+) (red),
MAP2K1 (+) (cyan),
MAPK14 (-) (green),
CEBRPA (+) (blue).
In this network we find a number of strong indirect links
from the block of {\it MAP2K1 Q02750 (+)} (blue nodes) to
{\it EGFR P00533 (-)} (red nodes) for which there is no direct link
(e.g. from $i=21$ to $i=14$ proteins of Table~\ref{table3}).
In the opposite direction from red to blue nodes there are only
two strong direct matrix elements of $\Grr$
being from {\it PI3K SIGNOR-C156 (+)} $i=13$
to {\it IRS1 P35568 (-)}  $i=21$ with $g= 0.08501$
and from {\it STAT3 P40763 (+)} $i=18$
to {\it CASP3 P42574 (+)} $i=32$ with $g= 0.03543$
with all other elements being below $1.8 \times 10^{-5}$.
However, in this direction there are 9 new
indirect links with elements $g> 0.01$
and 20 with  $g> 0.005$.
This results in a rather dense network with many
links shown in Figure~\ref{fig6}.
From the network structure we see that the
proteins $i=25, 40$ of the blue block
are more closely related with proteins of the
red block and inversely the
proteins $i=10, 18, 20$ of the red block are more closely
related with proteins of the blue block.

\begin{figure}[h!]
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{fig6}}
\caption{Same as Figure~\ref{fig4}
but for the pathway of Table~\ref{table3}.
}
\label{fig6}
\end{figure}

As a further example we also briefly discuss the pathway
generated by injection at
{\it EGFR P00533 (+)} and absorption at
{\it PIK3CA P42336 (-)}.
These two proteins are conventional bio markers of lung cancer
(see e.g. \cite{krasnoyarsk}).
The global PageRank indices of these two nodes are
$K= 90$ (PageRank probability $P(90)= 0.0009633$ ) for  {\it EGFR P00533 (+)} and
$K=1604$ (PageRank probability $P(1604)= 0.0001366$) for {\it PIK3CA P42336 (-)}.

The most sensitive proteins obtained by the LIRGOMAX algorithm,
are shown in Table~\ref{table4}. However, now
the absorption node {\it PIK3CA P42336 (-)}
has a very low value (in modulus) of
$P_1$ ($P_1= -4.59 \times 10^{-5}$, $K_L= 2806$)
and does initially not belong to the group of nodes with 20 top strongest
negative values. Therefore we replace the node {\it AKT3 Q9Y243 (+)} ($K_L=70$)
which was initially selected for $i=20$ by the absorption node
{\it PIK3CA P42336 (-)}.
Furthermore, also its $(+)$ component {\it PIK3CA P42336 (+)}
($P_1= -0.004546$ and $K_L =138$) does not appear
in Table~\ref{table4} showing that the influence of {\it EGFR P00533 (+)}
on the protein {\it PIK3CA P42336} is rather low.

\begin{table}
\begin{center}
{
\relsize{-1}
\caption{Same as in Table~\ref{table1}
but for injection (pumping) at {\it EGFR P00533 (+)}
and absorption at {\it PIK3CA P42336 (-)}.
}
\label{table4}
\include{table4}}
\end{center}
\end{table}

The friendship network structure of shown in Figure~\ref{fig7}
shows a clear separation between the two blocks
of positive (blue) and negative (red) $P_1$ values.
However, some proteins of one block
happen to be closer to proteins of the other block
(e.g. proteins $i=10, 14$ from the red block are closer to the blue block
and blue block protein $i=29$ is closer to the proteins of the red block).
We also note that concerning the links from the blue to the red block there
are 9 significant direct transitions (matrix elements of $\Grr$ larger
than 0.01) and 35 significant indirect {\em and} direct transitions
(matrix elements of $\Grr+\Gqrnd$ larger than 0.01).
For the opposite direction of transitions from the red to the blue block
the increase is less significant but still there are new transitions
due to indirect pathways (2 significant transitions for $\Grr$
and 3 for $\Grr+\Gqr$).
The significance of indirect transitions
is also well visible in the friendship
network of Figure~\ref{fig7}
with many red arrows between the two blocks.

The same results for the original list, where the node {\it AKT3 Q9Y243 (+)}
at position $i=20$ has not been replaced by {\it PIK3CA P42336 (-)},
are available at \cite{ourwebpage}.

\begin{figure}[h!]
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{fig7}}
\caption{Same as Figure~\ref{fig4}
but for the pathway of Table~\ref{table4}.
}
\label{fig7}
\end{figure}

\section{Discussion}

In this work we describe
the properties of Google matrix analysis of the
bi-functional SIGNOR PPI network
from \cite{signor}. The main elements of this approach are:
the activation and inhibition actions
of proteins on each-other are described by
Ising spin matrix transitions between
the protein components in the doubled size Ising-PPI-network;
the recently developed LIRGOMAX \cite{lirgomax} algorithm
determines the most sensitive proteins
on the pathway between two selected proteins
with probability injection (pumping)
at one protein and absorption at another protein;
the set of most sensitive proteins are analyzed by the
REGOMAX algorithm which
treats efficiently all direct and indirect
interactions in this subset
taking into account all their effective interactions
through the global PPI network.
We illustrated the efficiency of this
approach on several examples of two selected proteins.
The obtained  results show the  efficiency of
the LIRGOMAX and REGOMAX algorithms.
We also show that the bi-functionality
of protein-protein interactions
leads to a certain effective
magnetization of proteins
which characterizes their dominant action
on the global PPI network.

The executive codes and reduce Google matrix data
are open and publicly available at \cite{ourwebpage}
and interested researchers can easily
study any example of a pathway between any pair
of proteins from the SIGNOR network.

The described LIRGOMAX and REGOMAX algorithms can be applied also
to other type of biological networks
(e.g. metabolic networks discussed by \cite{metabol}).

We mention that the described Google matrix algorithms
have been tested for networks with 5 million nodes
and thus they can operate efficiently
on other PPI networks of significantly larger size
(e.g. MetaCore  network \cite{metacore}
which has several tens of thousands of nodes and about $2$ million links).
Thus we expect that the Google matrix approach, or in short Googlomics,
will find broad applications for the analysis of protein-protein
interactions.

\section{Acknowledgments}
This work was supported in
part by the Programme Investissements
d'Avenir ANR-11-IDEX-0002-02,
reference ANR-10-LABX-0037-NEXT (project THETRACOM).
This work was granted access to the HPC resources of
CALMIP (Toulouse) under the allocation 2019-P0110.


\section{Introduction}
The magnetic monopole has a long history starting with the proposal of Dirac~\cite{Dirac} and among the past works, the mathematical clarification by Wu and Yang  \cite{Wu-Yang} is important for an analysis of a new monopolelike object in the present paper.  We have recently encountered an interesting monopolelike object \cite{Deguchi-Fujikawa1} in the analysis of an exactly solvable model \cite{exact solution}  of Berry's phase \cite{Higgins, Berry, Simon}. The monopolelike object  associated with Berry's phase is defined in the parameter space described by the external magnetic field but here we shall present a  translation of the monopolelike object  to the one in the real space. This monopolelike object shows several  novel properties. A notable feature of the new magnetic monopolelike potential ${\cal A}_{k}(r,\theta)$  with a magnetic charge $e_{M}$ is
that the Dirac string, which  appears when the net outgoing flux is nonvanishing, is naturally described by the potential ${\cal A}_{k}(r,\theta)$ itself and that the geometrical center of the monopole configuration and the origin of the Dirac string are displaced in the coordinate space.   We discuss the smooth topology change from a monopolelike configuration to a dipole configuration by combining this displacement with Gauss' theorem
$\int_{S}(\nabla\times {\cal A})\cdot d\vec{S}=\int_{V} \nabla\cdot (\nabla\times {\cal A}) dV=0$ for a volume $V$ which is free of singularities. Gauss' theorem shows that the monopolelike configuration  combined with the Dirac string is essentially a dipole. The smooth topology change from a monopole to a dipole then takes place when one regards the Dirac string as unobservable if the Dirac string  satisfies the Wu-Yang gauge invariance condition or equivalently Dirac's quantization condition when coupled to the electron, and thus it is related to the very idea of Dirac string. The quantization of the electric charge takes place even if the monopole changes to a dipole near the origin. In the transitional region from a monopole to a dipole, a half-monopole with a magnetic charge $e_{M}/2$ appears depending on the electric charge quantization condition.
To our knowledge, no previous analysis of this class of deformation of the Dirac monopole in the real space has been performed.

\section{A new static monopolelike potential}

\subsection{Basic properties of the conventional monopole}
We first briefly recall the characteristic properties of the conventional monopole, namely, topology and the quantization of the electric charge.  The standard static spherically symmetric monopole located at the origin is defined by the potential \cite{Wu-Yang}
\begin{eqnarray}\label{conventional potential}
{\cal A}_{\varphi}(r,\theta)
= \frac{e_{M}}{4\pi r\sin\theta} \left(1 - \cos \theta \right)
\end{eqnarray}
and ${\cal A}_{\theta} ={\cal A}_{r} =0$ with a magnetic charge $e_{M}$.  This potential has a singularity at $\theta=\pi$ which is related to the Dirac string in addition to the singularity at $r=0$.
This potential for $\theta \neq \pi$ and $r\neq 0$  gives rise to the magnetic field
\begin{eqnarray}\label{naive monopole}
\vec{\nabla}\times \vec{{\cal A}}=\frac{e_{M}}{4\pi r^{2}}\frac{\vec{r}}{r}
\end{eqnarray}
where the singularity explicitly appears only at $r=0$. We then have naively
\begin{eqnarray}\label{magnetic flux0}
\int_{S}(\nabla\times {\cal A})\cdot d\vec{S}=e_{M}
\end{eqnarray}
by closing the excluded point $\theta=\pi$ on a sphere $S$ which covers the monopole located  at the origin.
This value is independent of the size of the radius of a sphere which covers the monopole, namely, irrespective of a large radius far away or  a very small radius around the origin.  This is one of the topological aspects of the conventional monopole.

To satisfy the constraint of Gauss' theorem
$\int_{S}(\nabla\times {\cal A})\cdot d\vec{S}=\int_{V} \nabla\cdot (\nabla\times {\cal A}) dV=0$ for a volume $V$, that is free of singularities at $\theta=\pi$ and $r=0$,  Dirac introduced an infinitely thin tube surrounding the Dirac string  and stretching from the origin to infinity in the direction of $\theta=\pi$. This string or tube carries in the magnetic flux to the center of the magnetic monopole to compensate for the outgoing radial flux. If one chooses the volume $V$ such that it avoids this thin tube, i.e., the Dirac string,  inside a sphere with radius $r$ and if one chooses $S$ to be the entire surface of $V$, one can satisfy Gauss' theorem and the conservation of the magnetic flux.

Dirac then showed that this thin tube can be excluded from the physical state space if one imposes a condition which leads to the electric charge quantization
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Dirac quantization condition0}
\frac{e e_{M}}{c\hbar}=n\times 2\pi
\end{eqnarray}
with an integer $n$.  Here $e$ stands for the charge of the electron. After this elimination of the Dirac string from physical states, only the naive magnetic monopole with the flux in \eqref{naive monopole} and  \eqref{magnetic flux0} is left as the physical entity. This quantization is a remarkable prediction arising from the analysis of the Dirac string associated with the magnetic monopole \cite{Dirac}.  Wu and Yang explained the quantization of the electric charge using a different mathematical formulation \cite{Wu-Yang}.

    The monopolelike configuration we are going to discuss, which is inspired by an analysis of Berry's phase \cite{Deguchi-Fujikawa1}, is schematically shown for the case $r/a >1$ with a constant parameter $a\neq 0$ which sets the scale in Fig.1. The property of the monopolelike potential is sensitive to $r$, namely, at which value of $r$ the monopolelike object is observed. For example, for $r/a \rightarrow \infty$ the monopolelike object looks like the conventional monopole, while for $r/a \rightarrow 0$ with fixed $a\neq 0$, no singularity appears near the origin $r \sim 0$ and a dipole is realized; in fact it vanishes at $r=0$.  In this analysis, the coordinate origin, which has no meaning as physical reality, is identified as the location of the monopole on the basis of  the observation of the magnetic flux at  far away points.
In contrast, the charge quantization takes place  in our monopolelike potential also, since the monopolelike potential agrees with the conventional monopole with a Dirac string when it is observed at any far away point and thus the conventional Dirac quantization is required to be satisfied to  ensure the unobservable Dirac string at such far away points. The conventional monopole \eqref{conventional potential} is recovered by setting $a = 0$ first with any fixed $r$.

\begin{figure}[htb]
 \begin{center}
   \includegraphics*[width = 6.0cm]{Fig_01.eps}
   \caption{Schematic picture of a monopolelike object we discuss, covered by  a virtual sphere  with fixed radius $r$ which satisfies $r/a >1$ for a constant  parameter $a\neq 0$.   Geometrical center and the origin of the Dirac string  denoted by a wavy line are displaced by the distance $r=a$. The outgoing arrows indicate the outgoing flux in the radial direction on the sphere with fixed $r$.  Note that the dot at the geometrical center is  for a visual aid and does not represent any singularity at the origin $r = 0$ for fixed $a \neq 0$; in fact, the monopolelike object vanishes at $r = 0$. Volume $V$ inside the sphere, which is used later, avoids a thin tube surrounding the Dirac string and $S$ stands for the entire surface of $V$ including the surface of the tube in this context.} \label{Fig_01}
 \end{center}
\end{figure}

\subsection{New monopole-like potential}

We now discuss a new static and azimuthally symmetric magnetic monopolelike potential defined by
\begin{eqnarray}\label{potential1}
{\cal A}_{\varphi}(r,\theta)
\equiv \frac{e_{M}}{4\pi r\sin\theta} \left(1 - \cos \Theta(\theta,\eta) \right)
\end{eqnarray}
and ${\cal A}_{\theta} ={\cal A}_{r} =0$ with a magnetic charge $e_{M}$.  This is a  translation of a monopolelike object associated with Berry's phase in the parameter space \cite{Deguchi-Fujikawa1} to the one in the real space. The variable $\Theta(\theta,\eta)$ is defined by
\begin{eqnarray}\label{capital theta}
\Theta(\theta,\eta)=\theta-\alpha(\theta,\eta)
\end{eqnarray}
where $\alpha(\theta,\eta)$ is defined by the relation
\begin{eqnarray}\label{parameter}
\tan\alpha(\theta,\eta)=\frac{\sin\theta}{\eta + \cos\theta}
\end{eqnarray}
with
\begin{eqnarray}\label{parameter2}
\eta=\frac{r}{a}.
\end{eqnarray}
Note that $\alpha(\theta,\eta)=0$, namely, $a=0$ for any fixed $r$ gives the conventional Dirac monopole.
The definition of $\eta= r/a$ is a new ingredient of the present model in the real space.
The constant $a$ is a free parameter with the dimensions of length which sets the scale of the monopolelike object. This constant $a$ replaces the period parameter in Berry's phase \cite{Deguchi-Fujikawa1} and
leads to a very different physical interpretation of the monopolelike potential. To be precise, $a$ is treated as a constant parameter in the present model, while $a$ being the inverse of the period is a dynamical variable in Berry's phase. Thus the important notions of adiabatic and nonadiabatic movements in Berry's phase do not appear in the present model.
The magnetic charge $e_{M}$, which is quantized to be $2\pi\hbar$ in the case of Berry's phase \cite{Deguchi-Fujikawa1}, is chosen as a free parameter at this moment and later quantized in combination with the electric charge by the Dirac quantization condition.  Physically, the infinitely strong external magnetic field  in Berry's phase corresponds to the long distance behavior of the monopole in the real apace and the vanishingly weak external magnetic field in Berry's phase corresponds to the short distance behavior of the monopole in the real apace, and thus very different.

The conditions \eqref{capital theta} and \eqref{parameter}, which may look rather ad hoc in the context of a monopole in the real space, automatically appear in the context of Berry's phase and describe the deformation of the monopole leading to the smooth topology change from a monopole to a dipole \cite{Deguchi-Fujikawa1}. We find the mathematical properties of the monopolelike object defined in the real space illuminating. We thus present the mathematical analyses of the model defined by \eqref{potential1}, \eqref{capital theta}, \eqref{parameter} and \eqref{parameter2}
 below in the hope that they will interest the wider audience who are familiar with the conventional Dirac monopole. Naturally, the mathematical descriptions (and quoted figures) are closely related to the analyses of  the exact solution of Berry's phase \cite{Deguchi-Fujikawa1}.
 But the analysis of the  monopolelike object in the real space clarifies some important aspects such as the natural appearance of the Dirac string in the context of the monopole in the real space and the physical relevance of the Dirac string in the context of  the monopolelike object   associated with Berry's phase.

We start with the analysis of the parameter $\alpha(\theta,\eta)$.
In the relation \eqref{parameter} between $\theta$ and $\tan\alpha(\theta,\eta)$ for the case $0\leq \eta<1$,
we have a singularity at $\cos\theta_{0}=-\eta$ in the denominator of \eqref{parameter}. But this does not give rise to a singular relation between $\alpha(\theta,\eta)$ and $\theta$; one can confirm
\begin{eqnarray}\label{slope}
\frac{\partial\alpha(\theta,\eta)}{\partial\theta}=\frac{1+\eta\cos\theta}{(\eta+\cos\theta)^{2}+\sin^{2}\theta}
\end{eqnarray}
and thus
\begin{eqnarray}\label{smoothness}
\frac{\partial\alpha(\theta,\eta)}{\partial\theta}|_{\theta=\theta_{0}}=1
\end{eqnarray}
for $\cos\theta_{0}=-\eta$.
For the parameter range $\eta\geq 1$,  the relation \eqref{parameter} is smooth and for $\eta=1$, we have an exact relation
\begin{eqnarray}\label{half value}
\alpha(\theta,\eta=1)=\theta/2.
\end{eqnarray}
 For other parameter values, we  have  \begin{eqnarray}\label{limiting form}
&&\alpha(\theta,\eta)=\frac{1}{\eta}\sin\theta  \ \ \ \ {\rm for} \ \eta \gg 1,\nonumber\\
&&\alpha(\theta,\eta)=\theta -\eta \sin\theta  \ \ \ \ {\rm for} \ 0\leq \eta \ll 1.
\end{eqnarray}

It is later shown that the parameter domain $\eta=r/a>1$  implies the existence of a monopole configuration, to be precise, both the Dirac string and the net outgoing flux appear.  The domain $0\leq \eta=r/a<1$  implies the appearance of a dipole configuration (and the disappearance of a monopole configuration), namely, neither Dirac string nor net outgoing flux appear. The transition from $\eta>1$ to
$\eta<1$ through the critical value $\eta=r/a=1$ is thus important.
For the parameters
$\eta=1\pm\epsilon$
with a small positive $\epsilon$, it is confirmed that the value $\alpha(\theta,\eta)$ departs from the common value $\frac{1}{2}\theta$ assumed at around $\theta=0$ and splits into two branches for the values of the parameter $\theta$ close to  $\theta=\pi$. We have $\alpha(\pi,\eta)=0$ for $\eta=1+\epsilon$ and  $\alpha(\pi,\eta)=\pi$ for $\eta=1-\epsilon$, respectively,  with the slopes
\begin{eqnarray}\label{singularity}
\frac{\partial\alpha(\theta,\eta)}{\partial\theta}|_{\theta=\pi} =\mp \frac{1}{\epsilon}
\end{eqnarray}
for $\eta=1\pm \epsilon$, respectively, using \eqref{slope}. We thus observe the singular jump for a small value of $\epsilon$ characteristic to the topology change in terms of $\alpha(\theta,\eta)$ at $\eta=1$.

The parameter  $\Theta(\theta, \eta)=\theta-\alpha(\theta,\eta)$, which determines the monopolelike potential \eqref{potential1}, is shown in Fig.2. Note that $\Theta(0,\eta)=0$  since
$\alpha(0,\eta)=0$, and
\begin{eqnarray}\label{end values}
\Theta(\pi,\eta)=\pi, \ \pi/2, \ 0
\end{eqnarray}
respectively,  for $\eta>1$, $\eta=1$, and $\eta<1$, since
$\alpha(\pi,\eta)=0, \pi/2, \pi$, respectively,  for these values of $\eta$. See, for example,  \eqref{half value} and \eqref{limiting form}.
We also have
\begin{eqnarray}\label{turning point1}
\frac{\partial\Theta(\theta,\eta)}{\partial\theta}|_{\theta=\theta_{0}}=0
\end{eqnarray}
for $\eta<1$ using \eqref{smoothness}.

We here emphasize an important fact about the singularity structure at $r=0$ in the monopolelike potential
\eqref{potential1} for fixed $a\neq 0$.  From \eqref{limiting form} we have
\begin{eqnarray}\label{limiting form2}
\Theta(\theta,\eta)&=&\theta - \alpha(\theta,\eta)\nonumber\\
&\simeq&\eta \sin\theta
\end{eqnarray}
for $0\leq \eta = r/a \ll 1$, namely, for $r\sim 0$ with fixed $a$. This shows that the monopolelike potential \eqref{potential1} behaves like
\begin{eqnarray}\label{singularity free}
{\cal A}_{\varphi}&\simeq& \frac{e_{M}}{8\pi r\sin\theta}(\frac{r}{a}\sin\theta)^{2} = \frac{e_{M}}{8\pi a^{2}}r\sin\theta
\end{eqnarray}
at $r\sim 0$ with fixed $a \neq 0$. This behavior  shows that the monopolelike potential becomes {\em regular} with respect to both $r$ and $\theta$ near the origin and vanishes at the origin. This fact is important to understand the smooth topology change from a monopole to a dipole near the origin.  Also the dot at the geometrical center in Fig.1 is just for a visual aid and not a singularity,

\begin{figure}[htb]
 \begin{center}
   \includegraphics*[width = 8.0cm]{Fig_02.eps}
   \caption{The relation between $\theta$
and $\Theta(\theta,\eta)$ parameterized by $\eta$. Note that $\cos\theta_{0}=-\eta$. The monopolelike potential \eqref{potential1} is determined by $\Theta(\theta,\eta)$. See Fig.3 in \cite{Deguchi-Fujikawa1}.}\label{Fig_02}
 \end{center}
\end{figure}

We have thus specified the monopolelike potential \eqref{potential1}.
The topology change is seen in the change of $\Theta(\pi,\eta)=\pi$ for $\eta>1$ to $\Theta(\pi,\eta)=0$ for $\eta<1$ in Fig.2.  But we have a well-defined exact potential at the boundary $\eta=1$
\begin{eqnarray}\label{half sphere}
{\cal A}_{\varphi}&=&\frac{e_{M}}{4\pi r\sin\theta}(1-\cos\frac{1}{2}\theta)
\end{eqnarray}
for $\theta\neq \pi$. We also note that the Dirac string which corresponds to the singularity of the potential \eqref{potential1} can appear at $\theta=0$ or $\theta=\pi$; but no singularity at $\theta=0$ since $\Theta(0,\eta)=0$, and the possible Dirac string appears at $\theta=\pi$ for $\Theta(\pi,\eta)=\pi$ (for $\eta>1$) or $\Theta(\pi,\eta)=\pi/2$ (for $\eta=1$), but no string for $\Theta(\pi,\eta)=0$ (for $\eta<1$).

Using the potential \eqref{potential1} and ${\cal A}_{\theta}={\cal A}_{r}=0$,
we have  the magnetic flux in the space $\vec{r}=r(\sin\theta\cos\varphi,
\sin\theta\sin\varphi,\cos\theta )$ for $\theta\neq \pi$,
\begin{eqnarray}\label{magnetic flux}
\nabla\times {\cal A}
&=&\frac{e_{M}}{4\pi}\frac{\Theta^{\prime}(\theta,\eta)\sin\Theta(\theta,\eta)}{\sin\theta}\frac{1}{r^{2}}{\bf e}_{r} - \frac{e_{M}}{4\pi}\frac{\frac{\partial\Theta(\theta,\eta)}{\partial r}\sin\Theta(\theta,\eta)}{r\sin\theta}{\bf e}_{\theta}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\Theta^{\prime}(\theta,\eta)=\frac{\partial\Theta(\theta,\eta)}{\partial\theta}=1-\frac{\partial\alpha(\theta,\eta)}{\partial\theta}$ which is explicitly given using \eqref{slope}, ${\bf e}_{r}=\vec{r}/r$ and ${\bf e}_{\theta}$ is a unit vector in the (increasing) direction of $\theta$ in the spherical coordinates.
By recalling $\eta=r/a$, we have
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{\partial\Theta(\theta,\eta)}{\partial r}=\frac{1}{a}\frac{\partial\Theta(\theta,\eta)}{\partial \eta}
=\frac{1}{a}\frac{\sin\theta}{(\eta+\cos\theta)^{2}+\sin^{2}\theta}
\end{eqnarray}
where we used $\Theta(\theta,\eta)=\theta-\alpha(\theta,\eta)$ and \eqref{parameter}.
Note that we have the standard monopole \eqref{naive monopole} in \eqref{magnetic flux}
\begin{eqnarray}\label{standard monopole}
\nabla\times {\cal A}
&=&\frac{e_{M}}{4\pi}\frac{1}{r^{2}}{\bf e}_{r}
\end{eqnarray}
for $\Theta(\theta,\eta)=\theta$ which is realized  for $\eta=r/a\rightarrow \infty$ or $a\rightarrow 0$.

As for the integrated net outgoing  flux in the radial direction from a sphere centered at $\vec{r}=0$,
avoiding the singular point $\theta=\pi$, we have
\begin{eqnarray}\label{total flux}
\int_{\theta\neq\pi}(\nabla\times {\cal A})\cdot d\vec{S}&=&\int \frac{e_{M}}{4\pi}\frac{\Theta^{\prime}(\theta,\eta)\sin\Theta(\theta,\eta)}{\sin\theta}\frac{1}{r^{2}}r^{2}\sin\theta d\varphi d\theta\nonumber\\
&=&\int^{\pi}_{0} \frac{e_{M}}{2}\Theta^{\prime}(\theta,\eta)\sin\Theta(\theta,\eta) d\theta \nonumber\\
&=&\frac{e_{M}}{2} (1-\cos\Theta(\pi,\eta))
\end{eqnarray}
which agrees with Stokes' theorem applied to \eqref{potential1} for a small circle C near the south pole ($\theta=\pi$) in Fig.1.
Note that $\theta=\pi$ is a singularity of the potential but the point with $\theta=\pi$ on the surface is measure zero from a point of view of the present surface integral for the flux in the radial direction.
The outgoing flux \eqref{total flux} specifies the typical topological configurations. In Fig.2, we have $\Theta(\pi,\eta)=\pi$  in the domain $\eta=r/a>1$, $\Theta(\pi,\eta)=\frac{1}{2} \pi$ in the transitional domain $\eta=r/a=1$, and $\Theta(\pi,\eta)=0$ in the domain $\eta=r/a<1$,
respectively. We thus have the integrated flux of a monopole
\begin{eqnarray}\label{integrated flux}
\int_{\theta\neq\pi} (\nabla\times {\cal A})
\cdot d\vec{S}&=&
e_{M},\ \ \frac{1}{2}e_{M},\ \ 0
\end{eqnarray}
respectively, for three different parameter domains $\eta >1$, $\eta=1$ and $\eta<1$.

Our monopolelike potential is regular  for $\theta\neq\pi$ since both singular behavior \eqref{singularity} and the Dirac string  appear at $\theta=\pi$, and it is also regular at the point $r=0$ for $a\neq 0$ as explained in \eqref{singularity free}.

\section{Topological classification by Gauss' theorem}

The useful information about the topology change from a monopole for $r>a$ to a dipole for $r<a$ is given by Gauss' theorem which states that
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Gauss}
\int_{S}(\nabla\times {\cal A})\cdot d\vec{S}=\int_{V} \nabla\cdot (\nabla\times {\cal A}) dV=0
\end{eqnarray}
using the formula of vector analysis $\nabla\cdot (\nabla\times {\cal A}) =0$ valid for the domain in which ${\cal A}$ is regular.
Here the volume $V$ is defined by excluding a thin tube covering the Dirac string, which is shown in Fig.1, and $S$ stands for the entire surface of this volume $V$.
Note that there is no singularity inside the volume $V$ by recalling that the origin $r=0$ is not a singular point for $a\neq 0$ \eqref{singularity free}.
The Dirac string originates at $z=-a$
on the negative z-axis
corresponding to $\eta=r/a=1$. Recall that no Dirac string appears for $\eta<1$
since $\Theta(0,\eta)=\Theta(\pi,\eta)=0$ as in Fig.2 and thus no singularity appears in \eqref{potential1} at either $\theta=0$ or $\theta=\pi$.

The discrepancy of \eqref{total flux} and \eqref{Gauss} is attributed to the contribution
of the Dirac string.
It is instructive to confirm Gauss' theorem \eqref{Gauss} for $\eta>1$.  The first term in \eqref{magnetic flux}
determines the contribution from the outer surface in Fig.1
\begin{eqnarray}\label{outer surface}
\int_{S_{out}}(\nabla\times {\cal A})\cdot d\vec{S}=e_{M}
\end{eqnarray}
using the result in \eqref{integrated flux}.
The second term in \eqref{magnetic flux} describes a contribution to the flux flowing out from the volume V through the surface of the cylinder part of the thin tube surrounding the Dirac string in Fig.1
\begin{eqnarray}\label{cylinder}
\int (\nabla\times {\cal A})\cdot dS_{\theta}
&=& - \int \frac{e_{M}}{4\pi}\frac{\frac{\partial\Theta(\theta,\eta)}{\partial r}\sin\Theta(\theta,\eta)}{r\sin\theta}dr r\sin\theta d\varphi\nonumber\\
&=&-\frac{e_{M}}{2}\int_{a}^{r}
\frac{\partial\Theta(\theta,\eta)}{\partial r}\sin\Theta(\theta,\eta)dr\nonumber\\
&=&\frac{e_{M}}{2}(\cos\Theta(\theta,\eta)-\cos\Theta(\theta,\eta=1))\nonumber\\
&=&\frac{e_{M}}{2}(\cos\Theta(\theta,\eta)-\cos\frac{1}{2}\theta)
\end{eqnarray}
using  the surface element in the ${\bf e}_{\theta}$ direction
\begin{eqnarray}
dS_{\theta}=dr r\sin\theta d\varphi {\bf e}_{\theta}
\end{eqnarray}
and $\Theta(\theta,\eta=1)=\frac{1}{2}\theta$; we later set $\theta=\pi$.

As for the contribution of a small cap around the origin of the Dirac string in Fig.1, it is the same as the contribution of a small cap in Fig.3b discussed below. We estimate the contribution of the cap by applying Stokes' theorem to a small circle surrounding the end of the Dirac string  in Fig.3b; we obtain the same contribution by ``blowing it up'' to the full outer surface in Fig.3b since we do not encounter any singularity by noting the fact that $r=0$ is not a singularity \eqref{singularity free}.  The  outside of the outer sphere in Fig.3b corresponds to the inside of the volume $V$ in Fig.1. We already know the contribution of the sphere in Fig.3b given by \eqref{total flux} and \eqref{integrated flux}, and thus the contribution of the small cap in Fig.1 is given by the minus of the contribution of the sphere
\begin{eqnarray}\label{cap}
-\frac{e_{M}}{2} (1-\cos\frac{1}{2}\theta)
\end{eqnarray}
where we use a free value of $\theta$ without setting it at $\theta=\pi$ for the moment using $\Theta(\theta,\eta)=\frac{1}{2}\theta$ for $\eta=1$.

The sum of \eqref{cylinder} and \eqref{cap} gives
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{e_{M}}{2}(\cos\Theta(\theta,\eta)-\cos\frac{1}{2}\theta)-\frac{e_{M}}{2} (1-\cos\frac{1}{2}\theta)
=-\frac{e_{M}}{2}(1-\cos\Theta(\theta,\eta))
\end{eqnarray}
which gives $-e_{M}$ when one sets $\theta=\pi$ for $\eta>1$ and cancels the contribution from the outer surface \eqref{outer surface} in Fig.1, in agreement with Gauss' theorem \eqref{Gauss}.
 This analysis also shows that the Dirac string appears only when the net outgoing flux is nonvanishing.

The use of Stokes' theorem in the above analysis does not give an explicit evaluation of the small cap, but it shows the consistency of our analysis. The important property of the monopolelike object
\eqref{potential1} is that we have automatically the nonvanishing flux flowing through the surface of the thin tube surrounding the Dirac string \eqref{cylinder} including a small cap as described above, unlike the conventional monopole in \eqref{naive monopole} for which the incoming flux is introduced by hand to conserve the magnetic flux.

More formally, Stokes' theorem directly applied to an infinitesimally small circle $C$ surrounding the Dirac string in Fig.1 in the domain $\eta>1$  gives
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Stokes1}
\oint_{C} {\cal A}_{\varphi}r\sin\theta d\varphi =\int_{S^{\prime}}(\nabla\times {\cal A})\cdot d\vec{S}=e_{M}
\end{eqnarray}
using \eqref{total flux}.
This flux is regarded, depending on the choice of $S^{\prime}$, either as the flux flowing out of the volume $V$ which is explicitly given by \eqref{total flux} and \eqref{integrated flux} or the flux flowing into the volume $V$ through the surface of the tube covering the Dirac string including a cap at the origin of the Dirac string; the latter contribution is equal to the former contribution if one recalls the fact that no singularity (including $r=0$ as in  \eqref{singularity free}) exists inside the volume $V$ in Fig.1. We thus understand the vanishing of the left-hand side of \eqref{Gauss} in the case $\eta>1$.

\begin{figure}[htb]
 \begin{center}
   \includegraphics*[width = 14.cm]{Fig_03_abc.eps}
   \caption{
   Pictures with varying radius $r$ with fixed $a$ (and thus varying $\eta=r/a$).  Geometrical center and the origin of the Dirac string denoted by a wavy line are displaced by the distance $r=a$.
The outgoing arrows indicate the flux in the radial direction on the sphere with fixed $r$.
 The monopolelike potential vanishes at $r=0$ and thus the dot at the origin is for a visual aid and does not indicate any singularity. See also Figs.5 in \cite{Deguchi-Fujikawa1} in the case of a monopolelike object associated with Berry's phase.}\label{Fig_05a_b_c}
 \end{center}
\end{figure}

We next describe the pictures for varying $r$ with fixed $a$ in Figs.3a$\sim$ 3c using  the factor contained in the second expression in \eqref{total flux}
\begin{eqnarray}\label{differential flux}
\frac{e_{M}}{2}\Theta^{\prime}(\theta,\eta)\sin\Theta(\theta,\eta)
\end{eqnarray}
and the movement of $\Theta(\theta,\eta)$ in Fig.2.
Both the Dirac monopolelike flux and the Dirac string indicated by a wavy line are seen when observed at $r>a$ in Fig.3a. In the transitional                                                                                domain at $r=a$ in Fig.3b, one recognizes both the out-going flux from an outer sphere and a small cap covering the origin of the Dirac string, although half of the strength of those in Fig.3a as is shown in \eqref{integrated flux}. No net outgoing flux and no Dirac string are observed when one comes closer to the monopole position $r<a$ in Fig.3c, which indicates that the flux is coming from a dipole.  The inward flux in Fig.3c is consistent with the negative signature of
\begin{eqnarray}
\Theta^{\prime}(\theta,\eta)=\frac{\partial\Theta(\theta,\eta)}{\partial\theta}<0
\end{eqnarray}
in \eqref{differential flux} for $\eta<1$ and $\theta_{0}<\theta$, as is seen in Fig.2.
From a point of view of the net outgoing flux, we thus have three distinguished configurations; the full flux with $e_{M}$ in Fig.3a and the half flux with $e_{M}/2$ in Fig.3b and then no net flux in Fig.3c, corresponding to $\Theta(\pi,\eta) = \pi$, $\pi/2$ and $0$, respectively, as already seen in \eqref{integrated flux}.

On the other hand, the surface $S$ on the left-hand side of Gauss' theorem \eqref{Gauss} does not cover any singularity (including $r=0$ which is not a singularity) and in this sense topologically trivial.  The Gauss' theorem \eqref{Gauss} is valid for a smooth decrease of $r$ starting with Fig.3a to Fig.3b and then to Fig.3c.  Our smoothness argument of topology change from a monopole to a dipole in the monopolelike potential is based on this smooth transition combined with the quantum mechanical interpretation of the Dirac string.

We now follow the analyses of Dirac \cite{Dirac} and Wu and Yang\cite{Wu-Yang} to understand the crucial property of the Dirac string based on the notion of quantum mechanical states, which are described in the next section.

\section{Charge quantization and smooth topology change}
\subsection{Charge quantization}
We discuss the quantization of the electric charge in the presence of the present monopolelike potential using the notion of  quantum mechanical states.
If the Dirac string is not observable in the quantum mechanical sense when coupled to the electron, then we ignore it physically and identify a monopole.  This unobservability critically depends on the product of the electric charge of the electron and the magnetic charge of the monopolelike object and leads to the quantization of the electric charge~\cite{Dirac, Wu-Yang}, as will be discussed shortly.   Thus if the magnetic flux carried by the Dirac string satisfies the unobservability condition, we regard the monopolelike object as a physical monopole, and otherwise no physical monopole, namely, we regard a combination of the monopolelike object accompanied by the string as a physical entity.

We start with an analysis of the configuration with $\eta=r/a >1$ such as in Fig.3a.  The argument of Wu and Yang is to consider the singularity-free potentials in the upper and lower hemispheres
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal A}_{\varphi +}
&=&  \frac{e_{M}}{4\pi r\sin\theta}(1 - \cos\Theta(\theta,\eta)),\nonumber\\
{\cal A}_{\varphi -}
&=&  \frac{e_{M}}{4\pi r\sin\theta}(- 1 - \cos\Theta(\theta,\eta)),
\end{eqnarray}
using the potential in \eqref{potential1}.
These two potentials are related by a gauge transformation
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal A}_{\varphi -}={\cal A}_{\varphi +} - \frac{\partial\Lambda}{r\sin\theta\partial \varphi}
\end{eqnarray}
with
\begin{eqnarray}\label{gauge transformation}
\Lambda=\frac{e_{M}}{2\pi} \varphi.
\end{eqnarray}
The physical condition to be satisfied, which is related to the gauge invariance of the Aharonov-Bohm phase \cite{Aharonov-Bohm} , is
\begin{eqnarray}
\exp[-\frac{ie}{c\hbar}\oint {\cal A}_{\varphi -}r\sin\theta d\varphi]&=&\exp[-\frac{ie}{c\hbar}\oint{\cal A}_{\varphi +}r\sin\theta d\varphi +\frac{ie}{c\hbar}\oint \frac{\partial\Lambda}{r\sin\theta\partial \varphi}r\sin\theta d\varphi]\nonumber\\
&=&\exp[-\frac{ie}{c\hbar}\oint{\cal A}_{\varphi +}r\sin\theta d\varphi].
\end{eqnarray}
This is satisfied if the condition $\exp[i e e_{M}/c\hbar]=1$ is satisfied by the gauge transformation \eqref{gauge transformation}, namely,
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Dirac quantization condition}
e e_{M}/c\hbar=n\times 2\pi
\end{eqnarray}
with an integer $n$.
It is confirmed that the present argument of gauge transformation is equivalent to the evaluation of the phase change induced by the Dirac string~\cite{Wu-Yang}, and \eqref{Dirac quantization condition} is the conventional quantization condition of Dirac \cite{Dirac}. (This electric charge quantization does not appear in Berry's phase where the magnetic charge by itself is quantized to be $e_{M}=2\pi\hbar$ \cite{Deguchi-Fujikawa1}.)

In contrast, for the transitional domain $\eta=r/a =1$
such as in Fig.3b
we have two potentials from \eqref{half sphere}
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal A}_{\varphi +}&=&\frac{e_{M}}{4r\sin\theta}(1-\cos\frac{1}{2}\theta)\nonumber\\
{\cal A}_{\varphi -}&=&\frac{e_{M}}{4r\sin\theta}(-\cos\frac{1}{2}\theta)
\end{eqnarray}
which are well-defined in the upper and lower hemispheres, respectively, and are related by the gauge transformation
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal A}_{\varphi -}={\cal A}_{\varphi +} - \frac{\partial\Lambda}{r\sin\theta\partial \varphi}
\end{eqnarray}
with
\begin{eqnarray}
\Lambda=\frac{e_{M}}{4\pi} \varphi.
\end{eqnarray}
The physical condition
\begin{eqnarray}
\exp[-\frac{ie}{c\hbar}\oint {\cal A}_{\varphi -}r\sin\theta d\varphi]&=&\exp[-\frac{ie}{c\hbar}\oint{\cal A}_{\varphi +}r\sin\theta d\varphi +\frac{ie}{c\hbar}\oint \frac{\partial\Lambda}{r\sin\theta\partial \varphi}r\sin\theta d\varphi]\nonumber\\
&=&\exp[-\frac{ie}{c\hbar}\oint{\cal A}_{\varphi +}r\sin\theta d\varphi]
\end{eqnarray}
then requires that the gauge transformation gives
\begin{eqnarray}\label{half monopole phase1}
\exp[iee_{M}/2c\hbar]=\exp[in\pi ]=1
\end{eqnarray}
using the condition \eqref{Dirac quantization condition}.
For an even integer $n$ we can satisfy this condition, and thus we have a ``half-monopole'' with the magnetic charge $e_{M}/2$ as a physical monopole in Fig.3b.

On the other hand, for an odd integer $n$ in \eqref{Dirac quantization condition}, we have
\begin{eqnarray}\label{half monopole phase2}
\exp[iee_{M}/2c\hbar]=\exp[in\pi ]=-1.
\end{eqnarray}
This shows that the Dirac string associated with the half-monopole at the transitional domain $\eta=1$ with the magnetic charge $e_{M}/2$ is physically observable  for odd $n$; this phase of $\exp[i\pi]$ is the same as the Aharonov-Bohm phase of an electron in the magnetic field generated by the superconducting current of the Cooper pair in the experiment by Tonomura~\cite{Tonomura}.  In our criterion following the analysis of Wu and Yang \cite{Wu-Yang}, the Dirac string thus becomes a physical
observable.
The half-monopole is thus physical  only as a combination of  the monopolelike object, which generates the outgoing flux, and a Dirac string, although the Dirac string in the present case is actually defined only at the point $r=a$. Topologically, it is thus the same as the dipole for $\eta<1$ in Fig.3c for odd $n$.\\

\subsection { Smooth topology change}

The smooth topology change from a monopole to a dipole is a novel mechanism
of topology change found in \cite{Deguchi-Fujikawa1}, which is also incorporated in the present model. The idea of the Dirac string plays a central role in this mechanism. From the point of view of the Gauss' theorem \eqref{Gauss}, all the configurations of our monopolelike object  are topologically the dipole as is seen in Fig.1 by recalling that $r=0$ is not a singularity for $a\neq 0$.
Namely, the dipole which consists of the outgoing flux from the surface of the sphere and the incoming flux from the Dirac string has a trivial topology from the point of view of Gauss' theorem. But if one eliminates the Dirac string from the physical state space following the analysis of Dirac, and Wu and Yang, as described above, the dipole is now identified as a monopole.
The presence of a singularity at the origin is not required but the presence of the Dirac string is essential for the existence of the magnetic monopole; mathematically the Dirac string defines the monopole but the principle of quantum mechanics excludes the Dirac string from the space of physical states, leaving only the outgoing magnetic flux behind.

  Phenomenologically, the monopole and the dipole are very different if one looks at only the outgoing flux.  Mathematically, the transition from a monopole to a dipole when one approaches the monopole position as from Fig.3a to Fig.3c is nothing but the transition from a dipole to a dipole and thus the transition is smooth. This is the mechanism of the smooth topology change from a monopole to a dipole.   To realize the idea of a smooth transition from a monopole to a dipole, it is  important to have a finite gap (for $a\neq 0$) between the geometrical center of the monopolelike configuration and the origin of the Dirac string and that no singularity appears at the geometrical center $r=0$.

We have already explained that the ordinary Dirac monopole is realized by setting $a=0$  first for any fixed $r$ in Fig.1.
The Dirac string, which satisfies the Dirac quantization condition, is then stretching from the origin $\vec{r}=0$  to infinity for $a=0$. Thus there is no gap between the geometrical center and the origin of the Dirac string and, consequently, no topology change from a monopole to a dipole takes place.

\section{Discussion and conclusion}

We have encountered an interesting monopolelike object in the parameter space in the analysis of an exactly solvable model of Berry's phase \cite{Deguchi-Fujikawa1}.  We here presented a translation of the monopolelike object in the parameter space to the monopolelike object in the ordinary space with a scale parameter $a$ replacing the period parameter in Berry's phase. In the long distance or infrared domain ($r\gg a$), our monopolelike potential looks like the conventional Dirac monopole with a Dirac string if the Dirac quantization condition is satisfied. But in the short distance or ultraviolet domain ($r\ll a$), the monopole disappears together with a Dirac string and becomes a dipole.

Both the conventional Dirac monopole and the present monopolelike object are mathematically the dipole in the sense that the outgoing magnetic flux is compensated for by the incoming flux through a Dirac string.  As Dirac pointed out, the Dirac string is quantum mechanically unobservable if the suitable charge quantization condition is satisfied \cite{Dirac}.
The difference between the two monopoles is that the  Dirac string originates from the origin of the coordinates in the conventional Dirac monopole as in Fig.1 with $a=0$ and thus looks like a genuine monopole if the Dirac string is excluded from the space of physical states.  In contrast, the monopolelike object we discussed is more like a dipole since the Dirac string originates from a point away from the origin of the coordinates as in Fig.1 with $a\neq 0$, and the magnetic flux in the increasing $\theta$ direction exists as in \eqref{magnetic flux} which, however, does not contribute to the net outgoing flux. Nevertheless, if one eliminates the Dirac string from the space of physical states in our monopolelike object by imposing Dirac's quantization condition, we have an object similar to the conventional Dirac monopole  when seen from far away. Moreover, we can explain the quantization of the electric charge in our monopolelike object also, although no point-like monopole exists for $a\neq 0$.  Technically, one might use our monopolelike object as a means to define the conventional monopole in a smooth manner in the limit $a\rightarrow 0$.

It is customary to mention the monopolelike object appearing in adiabatic Berry's phase \cite{Berry}. We here discussed the other way around, namely, the possible implications of Berry's phase on the magnetic monopole itself with a novel mechanism of smooth topology change from a monopole to a dipole.
It is hoped that the present analysis will stimulate the further analyses of the interesting subject of the Dirac magnetic monopole.
\\

One of us (KF) is supported in part by JSPS KAKENHI (Grant No.18K03633).