IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pcbi00/1006631.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Joshua Russell-Buckland
  • Christopher P Barnes
  • Ilias Tachtsidis

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 distributions of parameters that can better guard against misinterpretation of results, 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.Author summary: Systems 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 model’s parameter to observed or simulated data; and by looking at how these values change during the fitting process we investigate 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.

Suggested Citation

  • Joshua Russell-Buckland & Christopher P Barnes & Ilias Tachtsidis, 2019. "A Bayesian framework for the analysis of systems biology models of the brain," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(4), pages 1-29, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pcbi00:1006631
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006631
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006631
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006631&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006631?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. Hiroaki Kitano, 2002. "Computational systems biology," Nature, Nature, vol. 420(6912), pages 206-210, November.
    2. repec:dau:papers:123456789/6072 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Ryan N Gutenkunst & Joshua J Waterfall & Fergal P Casey & Kevin S Brown & Christopher R Myers & James P Sethna, 2007. "Universally Sloppy Parameter Sensitivities in Systems Biology Models," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 3(10), pages 1-8, October.
    4. D. J. Venzon & S. H. Moolgavkar, 1988. "A Method for Computing Profile‐Likelihood‐Based Confidence Intervals," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 37(1), pages 87-94, March.
    5. Nick Pullen & Richard J Morris, 2014. "Bayesian Model Comparison and Parameter Inference in Systems Biology Using Nested Sampling," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(2), pages 1-11, February.
    6. Mark A. Beaumont & Jean-Marie Cornuet & Jean-Michel Marin & Christian P. Robert, 2009. "Adaptive approximate Bayesian computation," Biometrika, Biometrika Trust, vol. 96(4), pages 983-990.
    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. Samuel Bandara & Johannes P Schlöder & Roland Eils & Hans Georg Bock & Tobias Meyer, 2009. "Optimal Experimental Design for Parameter Estimation of a Cell Signaling Model," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(11), pages 1-12, November.
    2. Diego Fernández Slezak & Cecilia Suárez & Guillermo A Cecchi & Guillermo Marshall & Gustavo Stolovitzky, 2010. "When the Optimal Is Not the Best: Parameter Estimation in Complex Biological Models," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(10), pages 1-10, October.
    3. Filippi Sarah & Barnes Chris P. & Cornebise Julien & Stumpf Michael P.H., 2013. "On optimality of kernels for approximate Bayesian computation using sequential Monte Carlo," Statistical Applications in Genetics and Molecular Biology, De Gruyter, vol. 12(1), pages 87-107, March.
    4. Xing Ju Lee & Christopher C. Drovandi & Anthony N. Pettitt, 2015. "Model choice problems using approximate Bayesian computation with applications to pathogen transmission data sets," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 71(1), pages 198-207, March.
    5. McKinley, Trevelyan J. & Ross, Joshua V. & Deardon, Rob & Cook, Alex R., 2014. "Simulation-based Bayesian inference for epidemic models," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 434-447.
    6. Pierre-Olivier Goffard & Patrick Laub, 2021. "Approximate Bayesian Computations to fit and compare insurance loss models," Working Papers hal-02891046, HAL.
    7. Bertl Johanna & Ewing Gregory & Kosiol Carolin & Futschik Andreas, 2017. "Approximate maximum likelihood estimation for population genetic inference," Statistical Applications in Genetics and Molecular Biology, De Gruyter, vol. 16(5-6), pages 291-312, December.
    8. Hongwei Shao & Tao Peng & Zhiwei Ji & Jing Su & Xiaobo Zhou, 2013. "Systematically Studying Kinase Inhibitor Induced Signaling Network Signatures by Integrating Both Therapeutic and Side Effects," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(12), pages 1-16, December.
    9. Chandra, Yanto & Wilkinson, Ian F., 2017. "Firm internationalization from a network-centric complex-systems perspective," Journal of World Business, Elsevier, vol. 52(5), pages 691-701.
    10. Cecilia Viscardi & Michele Boreale & Fabio Corradi, 2021. "Weighted approximate Bayesian computation via Sanov’s theorem," Computational Statistics, Springer, vol. 36(4), pages 2719-2753, December.
    11. Henri Pesonen & Umberto Simola & Alvaro Köhn‐Luque & Henri Vuollekoski & Xiaoran Lai & Arnoldo Frigessi & Samuel Kaski & David T. Frazier & Worapree Maneesoonthorn & Gael M. Martin & Jukka Corander, 2023. "ABC of the future," International Statistical Review, International Statistical Institute, vol. 91(2), pages 243-268, August.
    12. Jung Hsuan & Marjoram Paul, 2011. "Choice of Summary Statistic Weights in Approximate Bayesian Computation," Statistical Applications in Genetics and Molecular Biology, De Gruyter, vol. 10(1), pages 1-23, September.
    13. Mika Gustafsson & Michael Hörnquist, 2010. "Gene Expression Prediction by Soft Integration and the Elastic Net—Best Performance of the DREAM3 Gene Expression Challenge," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(2), pages 1-8, February.
    14. Gabriele Lillacci & Mustafa Khammash, 2010. "Parameter Estimation and Model Selection in Computational Biology," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(3), pages 1-17, March.
    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    17. Owen Jamie & Wilkinson Darren J. & Gillespie Colin S., 2015. "Likelihood free inference for Markov processes: a comparison," Statistical Applications in Genetics and Molecular Biology, De Gruyter, vol. 14(2), pages 189-209, April.
    18. Maxime Lenormand & Franck Jabot & Guillaume Deffuant, 2013. "Adaptive approximate Bayesian computation for complex models," Computational Statistics, Springer, vol. 28(6), pages 2777-2796, December.
    19. Christophe Andrieu & Arnaud Doucet & Roman Holenstein, 2010. "Particle Markov chain Monte Carlo methods," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 72(3), pages 269-342, June.
    20. Koblents, Eugenia & Míguez, Joaquín & Rodríguez, Marco A. & Schmidt, Alexandra M., 2016. "A nonlinear population Monte Carlo scheme for the Bayesian estimation of parameters of α-stable distributions," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 57-74.

    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:pcbi00:1006631. 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.