A continuous optimization approach for inferring parameters in mathematical models of regulatory networks

BMC Bioinformatics

Zhimin Deng²  Tianhai Tian¹ 

[1] School of Mathematical Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne 3800, Victoria, Australia

[2] School of Applied Mathematics, Guangdong University of Technology, Guangzhou 510006, China

关键词: Robustness analysis;    Continuous objective function;    Mathematical model;    Regulatory network;    Parameter inference;   

Others  :  1087536
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2105-15-256

 received in 2013-11-22, accepted in 2014-07-09,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

The advances of systems biology have raised a large number of sophisticated mathematical models for describing the dynamic property of complex biological systems. One of the major steps in developing mathematical models is to estimate unknown parameters of the model based on experimentally measured quantities. However, experimental conditions limit the amount of data that is available for mathematical modelling. The number of unknown parameters in mathematical models may be larger than the number of observation data. The imbalance between the number of experimental data and number of unknown parameters makes reverse-engineering problems particularly challenging.

Results

To address the issue of inadequate experimental data, we propose a continuous optimization approach for making reliable inference of model parameters. This approach first uses a spline interpolation to generate continuous functions of system dynamics as well as the first and second order derivatives of continuous functions. The expanded dataset is the basis to infer unknown model parameters using various continuous optimization criteria, including the error of simulation only, error of both simulation and the first derivative, or error of simulation as well as the first and second derivatives. We use three case studies to demonstrate the accuracy and reliability of the proposed new approach. Compared with the corresponding discrete criteria using experimental data at the measurement time points only, numerical results of the ERK kinase activation module show that the continuous absolute-error criteria using both function and high order derivatives generate estimates with better accuracy. This result is also supported by the second and third case studies for the G1/S transition network and the MAP kinase pathway, respectively. This suggests that the continuous absolute-error criteria lead to more accurate estimates than the corresponding discrete criteria. We also study the robustness property of these three models to examine the reliability of estimates. Simulation results show that the models with estimated parameters using continuous fitness functions have better robustness properties than those using the corresponding discrete fitness functions.

Conclusions

The inference studies and robustness analysis suggest that the proposed continuous optimization criteria are effective and robust for estimating unknown parameters in mathematical models.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Deng and Tian; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Hartig F, Calabrese JM, Reineking B, Wiegand T, Huth A: Statistical inference for stochastic simulation models–theory and application. Ecol Lett 2011, 14(8):816-827.
• [2]Ashyraliyev M, Fomekong-Nanfack Y, Kaandorp JA, Blom JG: Systems biology: parameter estimation for biochemical models. Febs J 2009, 276(4):886-902.
• [3]Gutenkunst RN, Waterfall JJ, Casey FP, Brown KS, Myers CR, Sethna JP: Universally sloppy parameter sensitivities in systems biology models. PLoS Comput Biol 2007, 3(10):1871-1878.
• [4]Lillacci G, Khammash M: Parameter estimation and model selection in computational biology. PLoS Comput Biol 2010, 6(3):e1000696.
• [5]Vyshemirsky V, Girolami MA: Bayesian ranking of biochemical system models. Bioinformatics 2008, 24(6):833-839.
• [6]Kirkpatrick S, Gelatt CD Jr, Vecchi MP: Optimization by simulated annealing. Science 1983, 220(4598):671-680.
• [7]Mendes P, Kell D: Non-linear optimization of biochemical pathways: applications to metabolic engineering and parameter estimation. Bioinformatics 1998, 14(10):869-883.
• [8]Ashyraliyev M, Jaeger J, Blom JG: Parameter estimation and determinability analysis applied to Drosophila gap gene circuits. BMC Syst Biol 2008, 2:83.
• [9]Moles CG, Mendes P, Banga JR: Parameter estimation in biochemical pathways: a comparison of global optimization methods. Genome Res 2003, 13(11):2467-2474.
• [10]Balsa-Canto E, Banga JR, Egea JA, Fernandez-Villaverde A, de Hijas-Liste GM: Global optimization in systems biology: stochastic methods and their applications. Adv Exp Med Biol 2012, 736:409-424.
• [11]Wilkinson DJ: Bayesian methods in bioinformatics and computational systems biology. Brief Bioinform 2007, 8(2):109-116.
• [12]Rogers S, Khanin R, Girolami M: Bayesian model-based inference of transcription factor activity. BMC Bioinformatics 2007, 8(Suppl 2):S2.
• [13]Boys RJ, Wilkinson DJ, Kirkwood TBL: Bayesian inference for a discretely observed stochastic kinetic model. Stat Comput 2008, 18(2):125-135.
• [14]Komorowski M, Finkenstadt B, Harper CV, Rand DA: Bayesian inference of biochemical kinetic parameters using the linear noise approximation. BMC Bioinformatics 2009, 10:343.
• [15]Battogtokh D, Asch DK, Case ME, Arnold J, Schuttler HB: An ensemble method for identifying regulatory circuits with special reference to the qa gene cluster of Neurospora crassa. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2002, 99(26):16904-16909.
• [16]Sisson SA, Fan Y, Tanaka MM: Sequential Monte Carlo without likelihoods. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2007, 104(6):1760-1765.
• [17]Beaumont MA, Zhang W, Balding DJ: Approximate Bayesian computation in population genetics. Genetics 2002, 162(4):2025-2035.
• [18]Marjoram P, Tavare S: Modern computational approaches for analysing molecular genetic variation data. Nat Rev Genet 2006, 7(10):759-770.
• [19]Wu Q, Smith-Miles K, Tian T: Approximate Bayesian computation schemes for parameter inference of discrete stochastic models using simulated likelihood density. BMC Bioinformatics 2014., 15
• [20]Zhan C, Yeung LF: Parameter estimation in systems biology models using spline approximation. BMC Syst Biol 2011, 5:14.
• [21]Voss HU, Timmer J, Kurths J: Nonlinear dynamical system identification from uncertain and indirect measurements. Int J Bifurcat Chaos 2004, 14(6):1905-1933.
• [22]Wang J, Tian T: Quantitative model for inferring dynamic regulation of the tumour suppressor gene p53. BMC Bioinformatics 2010, 11:36.
• [23]Tian T, Xu S, Gao J, Burrage K: Simulated maximum likelihood method for estimating kinetic rates in gene expression. Bioinformatics 2007, 23(1):84-91.
• [24]Wang YF, Christley S, Mjolsness E, Xie XH: Parameter inference for discretely observed stochastic kinetic models using stochastic gradient descent. BMC Syst Biol 2010, 4:99.
• [25]Liu PK, Wang FS: Inference of biochemical network models in S-system using multiobjective optimization approach. Bioinformatics 2008, 24(8):1085-1092.
• [26]Gupta R, Stincone A, Antczak P, Durant S, Bicknell R, Bikfalvi A, Falciani F: A computational framework for gene regulatory network inference that combines multiple methods and datasets. BMC Syst Biol 2011, 5:52.
• [27]Tian T, Smith-Miles K: Mathematical modeling of GATA-switching for regulating the differentiation of hematopoietic stem cell. BMC Syst Biol 2014, 8(Suppl 1):S8.
• [28]Rateitschak K, Winter F, Lange F, Jaster R, Wolkenhauer O: Parameter identifiability and sensitivity analysis predict targets for enhancement of STAT1 activity in pancreatic cancer and stellate cells. PLoS Comput Biol 2012, 8(12):e1002815.
• [29]Tian T, Song J: Mathematical modelling of the MAP kinase pathway using proteomic datasets. PLoS One 2012, 7(8):e42230.
• [30]Bar-Joseph Z, Gerber G, Simon I, Gifford DK, Jaakkola TS: Comparing the continuous representation of time-series expression profiles to identify differentially expressed genes. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2003, 100(18):10146-10151.
• [31]Voit EO, Almeida J: Decoupling dynamical systems for pathway identification from metabolic profiles. Bioinformatics 2004, 20(11):1670-1681.
• [32]Chipperfield AJ, Fleming PJ, Fonseca CM: Genetic Algorithm Tools for Control Systems Engineering. In Proceedings of Adaptive Computing in Engineering Design and Control. Plymouth Engineering Design Centre; 1994:128-133.
• [33]Kitano H: Towards a theory of biological robustness. Mol Syst Biol 2007, 3:137.
• [34]Ferrell JE Jr, Bhatt RR: Mechanistic studies of the dual phosphorylation of mitogen-activated protein kinase. J Biol Chem 1997, 272(30):19008-19016.
• [35]Bhalla US, Ram PT, Iyengar R: MAP kinase phosphatase as a locus of flexibility in a mitogen-activated protein kinase signaling network. Science 2002, 297(5583):1018-1023.
• [36]Tian T, Harding A, Inder K, Plowman S, Parton RG, Hancock JF: Plasma membrane nanoswitches generate high-fidelity Ras signal transduction. Nat Cell Biol 2007, 9(8):905-914.
• [37]Tian TH: Estimation of Kinetic Rates of MAP kinase Activation from Experimental Data. In 2009 International Joint Conference on Bioinformatics, Systems Biology and Intelligent Computing, Proceedings. Washington DC, USA: IEEE Computer Society; 2009:457-462.
• [38]Swat M, Kel A, Herzel H: Bifurcation analysis of the regulatory modules of the mammalian G1/S transition. Bioinformatics 2004, 20(10):1506-1511.
• [39]Huang CY, Ferrell JE Jr: Ultrasensitivity in the mitogen-activated protein kinase cascade. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1996, 93(19):10078-10083.
• [40]Bates DG, Cosentino C: Validation and invalidation of systems biology models using robustness analysis. IET Syst Biol 2011, 5(4):229-244.
• [41]Kitano H: Biological robustness. Nat Rev Genet 2004, 5(11):826-837.
• [42]Tian T, Olson S, Whitacre JM, Harding A: The origins of cancer robustness and evolvability. Integr Biol (Camb) 2011, 3(1):17-30.
• [43]Citri A, Yarden Y: EGF-ERBB signalling: towards the systems level. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 2006, 7(7):505-516.
• [44]Apri M, Molenaar J, de Gee M, van Voorn G: Efficient estimation of the robustness region of biological models with oscillatory behavior. PLoS One 2010, 5(4):e9865.
• [45]Masel J, Siegal ML: Robustness: mechanisms and consequences. Trends Genet 2009, 25(9):395-403.
• [46]Rizk A, Batt G, Fages F, Soliman S: A general computational method for robustness analysis with applications to synthetic gene networks. Bioinformatics 2009, 25(12):i169-i178.
• [47]Huys QJ, Paninski L: Smoothing of, and parameter estimation from, noisy biophysical recordings. PLoS Comput Biol 2009, 5(5):e1000379.