Search bioRxiv⌕ Search

bioRxiv · 10.1101/468793

A Bayesian framework for the analysis of systems biology models of the brain

Abstract

Systems biology models are used to understand complex biological and physiological systems. Interpretation of these models is an important part of developing this understanding. These models are often fit to experimental data in order to understand how the system has produced various phenomena or behaviour that are seen in the data. In this paper, we have outlined a framework that can be used to perform Bayesian analysis of complex systems biology models. In particular, we have focussed on analysing a systems biology of the brain using both simulated and measured data. By using a combination of sensitivity analysis and approximate Bayesian computation, we have shown that it is possible to obtain a more complete understanding of the parameter space as compared to a maximum likelihood estimate based approach. This is done through analysis of simulated and experimental data. NIRS measurements were simulated using the same simulated systemic input data for the model in a healthy and impaired state. By analysing both of these datasets, we show that different parameter spaces can be distinguished and compared between different physiological states or conditions. Finally, we analyse experimental data using the new Bayesian framework and the previous maximum likelihood estimate approach, showing that the Bayesian approach provides a more complete understanding of the parameter space.\n\nAuthor summarySystems biology models are mathematical representations of biological processes that reproduce the overall behaviour of a biological system. They are comprised by a number of parameters representing biological information. We use them to understand the behaviour of biological systems, such as the brain. We do this by fitting the models parameter to observed or simulated data; and by looking at how these values change during the fitting process we investigate the mechanisms controlling the behaviour of our system. We are interested in understanding differences between a healthy and an injured brain. Here we outline a statistical framework that uses a Bayesian approach during the fitting process that can provide us with a distribution of parameters rather than single parameter number. We apply this method when simulating the physiological responses between a healthy and a vascular compromised brain to a drop in oxygenation. We then use experimental data that demonstrates the healthy brain response to an increase in arterial CO2 and fit our brain model predictions to the measurements. In both instances we show that our approach provides more information about the overlap between healthy and unhealthy brain states than a fitting process that provides a single value parameter estimate.

Source connections

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Russell-Buckland, J., Barnes, C. P., Tachtsidis, I.. 2018-11-12. A Bayesian framework for the analysis of systems biology models of the brain. https://doi.org/10.1101/468793

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related preprints

Low-fidelity simulator selection for multi-fidelity inference of epithelial vertex models

Vertex models link cell division, neighbour exchange, and intercellular forces to epithelial tissue form through parameters such as junctional line tension and perimeter contractility. Bayesian inference of these parameters from data quantifies their uncertainty, but for stochastic models of proliferating tissues it requires many costly simulations. Multi-fidelity simulation-based inference reduces this cost by training on many runs of a cheaper, less accurate ('low-fidelity') simulator before refining with a few full ('high-fidelity') runs. Low-fidelity versions can be constructed in several ways, for example by stopping simulations early, coarsening the timestep, or averaging fewer replicates, but it is unclear which to choose before committing to costly training. To address this, we introduce PRISM (Paired Ranking Index for Simulator Matching), a screen that compares each candidate with the full simulator on paired runs, scoring agreement in cell-packing statistics against cost. For a vertex model of a proliferating tissue, PRISM flags stopping early as unreliable before training; once trained, this choice can produce confidently wrong parameter estimates. By contrast, a coarser timestep, within the range tested, is cheap and accurate; while fewer replicates are accurate but too costly. Using a screened low-fidelity simulator, multi-fidelity inference outperforms approximate Bayesian computation and neural-network inference trained on full simulations alone, at matched cost and with well-calibrated uncertainty. The same pattern recurs for a second vertex model fitted to published Drosophila pupal-wing imaging data, although there stopping halfway proves safe. Together, our findings suggest that which approximations are safe depends on the model, and that screening them before training makes multi-fidelity inference of tissue mechanics practical.

systems biology↗

Calibrating developmental dynamics from single-cell atlases: lineage paths outrun least-action routes

Single-cell atlases infer developmental dynamics from destructive snapshots, yet how far realized lineage paths depart from such inferred dynamics has never been measured with controls. We introduce LADD (Least-Action Developmental Dynamics), a measurement framework that learns a stochastic developmental vector field from time-series single-cell RNA-seq and computes minimum-action and minimum-time paths, together with a three-layer calibration protocol that separates genuine path deviation from the generic cost of centroid measurement, and we compare its forecasting component with optimal-transport and flow-matching methods. In the lineage-resolved Caenorhabditis elegans atlas, the raw action ratio of observed lineage-centroid trajectories to optimal paths is 3.79, yet forward-simulated ensembles of the learned model itself score 2.07, leaving a genuine excess of about two-fold. In zebrafish (Danio rerio), the observed ratio sits entirely at the model's floor. Three mechanisms that could explain the residual deviation (detours, flow-opposition, and fate-map complexity) are each excluded; what remains is speed, with lineages moving 30-43% faster along the learned flow. We report validity boundaries for temporal resolution, cross-species comparison, and energetic interpretation, delimiting where action-based trajectory comparisons are meaningful.

systems biology↗

Choice of annotation data significantly impacts automated reconstruction of genome-scale metabolic networks

Genome-scale metabolic models are valuable tools for studying metabolism in many applications, such as metabolic engineering or understanding human disease. However, curated models are available for only a limited number of organisms, and generating high-quality models for additional organisms remains a challenge. To help address this challenge, several software tools have been developed that can produce draft models in an automated fashion, but the quality of these draft models lags behind manually curated ones. Thus, there is still a need to improve these tools. Previous work has focused primarily on developing better methods for each step in the reconstruction process, such as gene annotation and gap-filling. Here, we focus on the data that underlies these methods, such as known connections between protein sequence and function. We find that changing the source of reconstruction data has a substantial impact on the contents and predictions of generated models. In fact, the source of data can have a bigger impact than the choice of reconstruction method. Additionally, we show that the reconstruction process is sensitive to the accuracy of gene annotations in the reconstruction data. Finally, we demonstrate the importance of having functional annotation data from an organism that is closely related to the one for which a model is being built. These observations highlight the importance of reconstruction data and identify principles that should be considered when selecting data for reconstruction tools.

systems biology↗