Author
Listed:
- Tuure Hameri
- Marc-Olivier Boldi
- Vassily Hatzimanikatis
Abstract
Kinetic models of metabolism can be constructed to predict cellular regulation and devise metabolic engineering strategies, and various promising computational workflows have been developed in recent years for this. Due to the uncertainty in the kinetic parameter values required to build kinetic models, these workflows rely on ensemble modeling (EM) principles for sampling and building populations of models describing observed physiologies. Sensitivity coefficients from metabolic control analysis (MCA) of kinetic models can provide important insight about cellular control around a given physiological steady state. However, despite considering populations of kinetic models and their model outputs, current approaches do not provide adequate tools for statistical inference. To derive conclusions from model outputs, such as MCA sensitivity coefficients, it is necessary to rank/compare populations of variables with each other. Currently existing workflows consider confidence intervals (CIs) that are derived independently for each comparable variable. Hence, it is important to derive simultaneous CIs for the variables that we wish to rank/compare. Herein, we used an existing large-scale kinetic model of Escherichia Coli metabolism to present how univariate CIs can lead to incorrect conclusions, and we present a new workflow that applies three different multivariate statistical approaches. We use the Bonferroni and the exact normal methods to build symmetric CIs using the normality assumptions. We then suggest how bootstrapping can compute asymmetric CIs whilst relaxing this normality assumption. We conclude that the Bonferroni and the exact normal methods can provide simple and efficient ways for constructing reliable CIs, with the exact normal method favored over the Bonferroni when the compared variables present dependencies. Bootstrapping, despite its significantly higher computational cost, is recommended when comparing non-normal distributions of variables. Additionally, we show how the Bonferroni method can readily be used to estimate required sample numbers to attain a certain CI size.Author summary: Due to various sources of uncertainty, populations of kinetic models of metabolism are generally constructed to derive conclusions about the dynamics of the modeled physiology. However, computational ensemble modeling (EM) frameworks for building populations of kinetic models do not systematically handle the uncertainty underlying model-based conclusions. Although kinetic models could suggest that modifying the level of certain enzymes would on average increase a flux of interest, this information is incomplete if we do not know with what certainty the model predicts this. We can instead use statistical inference approaches to quantify the level of confidence for which certain model conclusions lie within the confidence intervals. We demonstrate how three statistical methodologies can be applied to construct confidence intervals around distributions of output variables derived from populations of kinetic models. We discuss the advantages and disadvantages of applying these three methods and provide advice on their usage in EM. This will lead to improved metabolic engineering decisions by helping engineers focus on the most robust conclusions.
Suggested Citation
Tuure Hameri & Marc-Olivier Boldi & Vassily Hatzimanikatis, 2019.
"Statistical inference in ensemble modeling of cellular metabolism,"
PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(12), pages 1-16, December.
Handle:
RePEc:plo:pcbi00:1007536
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1007536
Download full text from publisher
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.
- Joel B. Greenhouse & Howard J. Seltman, 2018.
"On Teaching Statistical Practice: From Novice to Expert,"
The American Statistician, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 72(2), pages 147-154, April.
- Cameron Mura & Mike Chalupa & Abigail M Newbury & Jack Chalupa & Philip E Bourne, 2020.
"Ten simple rules for starting research in your late teens,"
PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(11), pages 1-11, November.
- Lars Ole Schwen & Sabrina Rueschenbaum, 2018.
"Ten quick tips for getting the most scientific value out of numerical data,"
PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(10), pages 1-21, October.
- Vincent Miele & Catherine Matias & Stéphane Robin & Stéphane Dray, 2019.
"Nine quick tips for analyzing network data,"
PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(12), pages 1-10, December.
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:pcbi00:1007536. 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.