IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pcbi00/1011398.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Structural identifiability of biomolecular controller motifs with and without flow measurements as model output

Author

Listed:
  • Eivind S Haus
  • Tormod Drengstig
  • Kristian Thorsen

Abstract

Controller motifs are simple biomolecular reaction networks with negative feedback. They can explain how regulatory function is achieved and are often used as building blocks in mathematical models of biological systems. In this paper we perform an extensive investigation into structural identifiability of controller motifs, specifically the so–called basic and antithetic controller motifs. Structural identifiability analysis is a useful tool in the creation and evaluation of mathematical models: it can be used to ensure that model parameters can be determined uniquely and to examine which measurements are necessary for this purpose. This is especially useful for biological models where parameter estimation can be difficult due to limited availability of measureable outputs. Our aim with this work is to investigate how structural identifiability is affected by controller motif complexity and choice of measurements. To increase the number of potential outputs we propose two methods for including flow measurements and show how this affects structural identifiability in combination with, or in the absence of, concentration measurements. In our investigation, we analyze 128 different controller motif structures using a combination of flow and/or concentration measurements, giving a total of 3648 instances. Among all instances, 34% of the measurement combinations provided structural identifiability. Our main findings for the controller motifs include: i) a single measurement is insufficient for structural identifiability, ii) measurements related to different chemical species are necessary for structural identifiability. Applying these findings result in a reduced subset of 1568 instances, where 80% are structurally identifiable, and more complex/interconnected motifs appear easier to structurally identify. The model structures we have investigated are commonly used in models of biological systems, and our results demonstrate how different model structures and measurement combinations affect structural identifiability of controller motifs.Author summary: Creating a mathematical model of a biological system can be a powerful way to gain insight into the behavior of the system. However, the accuracy and quality of model predictions depend heavily on model parameters. Compared to traditional human–engineered systems, such as mechanical or electrical systems, the availability of measurable outputs is severely limited for many biological systems. Furthermore, parameter estimation for biological models is often both challenging and associated with high cost. In this context, structural identifiability analysis is a helpful tool for finding the smallest or easiest to perform set of measurements that is sufficient to uniquely determine the model parameters. In this paper, we investigate a group of biological models called controller motifs, and we examine how varying model complexity and choice of measurements affect structural identifiability. We propose two alternative ways to include flow measurements as model output and show that structural identifiability can be achieved using a combination of concentration and/or flow measurements. Controller motifs can be used in a wide range of biological models, and our results can contribute to create structurally identifiable models.

Suggested Citation

  • Eivind S Haus & Tormod Drengstig & Kristian Thorsen, 2023. "Structural identifiability of biomolecular controller motifs with and without flow measurements as model output," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 19(8), pages 1-33, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pcbi00:1011398
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1011398
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1011398
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1011398&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1011398?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Juliane Liepe & Sarah Filippi & Michał Komorowski & Michael P H Stumpf, 2013. "Maximizing the Information Content of Experiments in Systems Biology," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(1), pages 1-13, January.
    2. Andreas Raue & Marcel Schilling & Julie Bachmann & Andrew Matteson & Max Schelke & Daniel Kaschek & Sabine Hug & Clemens Kreutz & Brian D Harms & Fabian J Theis & Ursula Klingmüller & Jens Timmer, 2013. "Lessons Learned from Quantitative Dynamical Modeling in Systems Biology," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(9), pages 1-17, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Valdemar Melicher & Tom Haber & Wim Vanroose, 2017. "Fast derivatives of likelihood functionals for ODE based models using adjoint-state method," Computational Statistics, Springer, vol. 32(4), pages 1621-1643, December.
    2. Daniel Silk & Paul D W Kirk & Chris P Barnes & Tina Toni & Michael P H Stumpf, 2014. "Model Selection in Systems Biology Depends on Experimental Design," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(6), pages 1-14, June.
    3. Jin, Ding & Thube, Sneha Dattatraya & Hedtrich, Johannes & Henning, Christian & Delzeit, Ruth, 2019. "A Baseline Calibration Procedure for CGE models: An Application for DART," Conference papers 333057, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    4. Andrew White & Malachi Tolman & Howard D Thames & Hubert Rodney Withers & Kathy A Mason & Mark K Transtrum, 2016. "The Limitations of Model-Based Experimental Design and Parameter Estimation in Sloppy Systems," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(12), pages 1-26, December.
    5. Elba Raimúndez & Simone Keller & Gwen Zwingenberger & Karolin Ebert & Sabine Hug & Fabian J Theis & Dieter Maier & Birgit Luber & Jan Hasenauer, 2020. "Model-based analysis of response and resistance factors of cetuximab treatment in gastric cancer cell lines," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(3), pages 1-21, March.
    6. repec:plo:pcbi00:1005234 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Fabian Fröhlich & Barbara Kaltenbacher & Fabian J Theis & Jan Hasenauer, 2017. "Scalable Parameter Estimation for Genome-Scale Biochemical Reaction Networks," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(1), pages 1-18, January.
    8. Diane Lefaudeux & Supriya Sen & Kevin Jiang & Alexander Hoffmann, 2022. "Kinetics of mRNA nuclear export regulate innate immune response gene expression," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-16, December.
    9. Katharina Nöh & Sebastian Niedenführ & Martin Beyß & Wolfgang Wiechert, 2018. "A Pareto approach to resolve the conflict between information gain and experimental costs: Multiple-criteria design of carbon labeling experiments," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(10), pages 1-30, October.
    10. Neveen Ali Eshtewy & Lena Scholz & Andreas Kremling, 2023. "Parameter Estimation for a Kinetic Model of a Cellular System Using Model Order Reduction Method," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-15, January.
    11. Thembi Mdluli & Gregery T Buzzard & Ann E Rundell, 2015. "Efficient Optimization of Stimuli for Model-Based Design of Experiments to Resolve Dynamical Uncertainty," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(9), pages 1-23, September.
    12. Nathaniel J Linden & Boris Kramer & Padmini Rangamani, 2022. "Bayesian parameter estimation for dynamical models in systems biology," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(10), pages 1-48, October.
    13. Filip Melinscak & Dominik R Bach, 2020. "Computational optimization of associative learning experiments," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(1), pages 1-23, January.
    14. Carlos F Martino & Pablo Jimenez & Max Goldfarb & Ugur G Abdulla, 2023. "Optimization of parameters in coherent spin dynamics of radical pairs in quantum biology," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(2), pages 1-17, February.
    15. Fabian Fröhlich & Philipp Thomas & Atefeh Kazeroonian & Fabian J Theis & Ramon Grima & Jan Hasenauer, 2016. "Inference for Stochastic Chemical Kinetics Using Moment Equations and System Size Expansion," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(7), pages 1-28, July.
    16. Zijian Wang & Jan Hasenauer & Yannik Schälte, 2024. "Missing data in amortized simulation-based neural posterior estimation," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 20(6), pages 1-17, June.
    17. Polina Lakrisenko & Paul Stapor & Stephan Grein & Łukasz Paszkowski & Dilan Pathirana & Fabian Fröhlich & Glenn Terje Lines & Daniel Weindl & Jan Hasenauer, 2023. "Efficient computation of adjoint sensitivities at steady-state in ODE models of biochemical reaction networks," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 19(1), pages 1-19, January.
    18. Neythen J Treloar & Nathan Braniff & Brian Ingalls & Chris P Barnes, 2022. "Deep reinforcement learning for optimal experimental design in biology," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(11), pages 1-24, November.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pcbi00:1011398. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ploscompbiol (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.