| Literature DB >> 24917054 |
Shaji Krishnan1, Mark van Avesaat, Freddy J Troost, Henk Fj Hendriks, Albert A de Graaf.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In-silico models that attempt to capture and describe the physiological behavior of biological organisms, including humans, are intrinsically complex and time consuming to build and simulate in a computing environment. The level of detail of description incorporated in the model depends on the knowledge of the system's behavior at that level. This knowledge is gathered from the literature and/or improved by knowledge obtained from new experiments. Thus model development is an iterative developmental procedure. The objective of this paper is to describe a new plug and play scheme that offers increased flexibility and ease-of-use for modeling and simulating physiological behavior of biological organisms.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24917054 PMCID: PMC4080776 DOI: 10.1186/1742-4682-11-28
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Theor Biol Med Model ISSN: 1742-4682 Impact factor: 2.432
Figure 1Generic modeling and simulation framework.
Figure 2Example system model. (a) Structural model description of the example system model. (b) Analogous visual representation of the structural model.
Example of model specification file for the structural model description of the model in Figure 2a
| C1 | Yes | A | | 20 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| | Yes | D | | | | | | | | | |
| | Yes | | B | | | | | | | | |
| C2 | Yes | B | | | | | | | | | |
| | Yes | | C | | | | | | | | |
| C3 | Yes | B | | | | | | | | | |
| | No | C | | | | | | | | | |
| Yes | D |
Content of a structural specification and data file for the example gastric emptying model
| Stomach | Yes | NUT_INP | | 35.6 | | | | | | | | |
| | Yes | IR_VE | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Yes | | NUT | | | | | | | | | |
| | Yes | | NUT_INP | | | | | | | | | |
| Intestine | Yes | NUT | | | | | | 0.5 | … | 0.5 | | |
| | Yes | | IR_VA | | | | | | | | | |
| CNS | Yes | IR_VA | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Yes | | IR_VE | | | | | | | | | |
| Yes | VAS |
Figure 3Diagrammatic representation of the structural model for the gastric emptying example.
Parameter definitions
| Gastric emptying rate constant | k | To be estimated | |
| Efferent signal threshold | THD | dimensionless | To be estimated |
| IR transfer rate constant | IR_TR | To be estimated | |
| In-vivo decay rate constant | INV_DR | To be estimated | |
| Caloric grade | CAL_GRD | dimensionless | 0.6 |
| Time at maximum amplitude | T_MAX | min | 10 |
| Transfer constant | TRF_K | dimensionless | 1 |
| Break constant percentage | BRK | dimensionless | 3 |
Figure 4Accumulated % C measurements (Dose/h) for (a) Placebo infusion, (b) Safflower infusion, and the non-linear least squares fit (continuous line) of a curve of the form .
Figure 5Gastric emptying curves for safflower oil infusion (SO) and placebo infusion (PB). The former was predicted based on a model parameter fit of data from the placebo infusion experiment.
Gastric emptying experimental data (measured) and model predictions (predicted) for 3 different data selections S1 (all data), S2 (curves with 1 or more negative C enrichment values discarded) and S3 (data selection based on chi-squared criterion) as described in the results section
| S1 | 1, 3, 6, 7, 8, | 1, 3, 6, 7, 8, | 172.8; 103.7 | 165; 86.5 |
| | 10, 12, 13, | 10, 12, 13, | | |
| | 14, 15, 16, | 14, 15, 16, | | |
| | 17, & 18 | 17, & 18 | | |
| S2 | 1, 3, 6, 7, | 3, 6, 7, 8, | 174; 101.3 | 165; 87.5 |
| | 10, 12, 13, | 10, 14, 15, | | |
| | 14, 16, 17, | 16, 17, & 18 | | |
| | & 18 | | | |
| S3 | 1, 6, 13, 14, | 1, 3, 7, 10, | 170; 91.7 | 168; 94.7 |
| | 15, 16, 17, | 15, 17, & 18 | | |
| & 18 |
Benchmarking the newly developed plug-and-play modeling tool against commonly used and established tools
| 1 | Organ level modeling, and simulation | Models and simulates at organ level | Models and simulates at cellular level | Models and simulates at organ level |
| 2 | Lesser programing effort for: | Programing effort for: | Programing effort for: | Uses ISML (standard programing language) |
| | | | | and thus requires programing effort. |
| | 1. Structural description | 1. Structural description: No | 1. Structural description: No | |
| | 2. Functional description | 2. Functional description: | 2. Functional description: | |
| | | single time effort, and reusable | No (COPASI, but not reusable); single time effort and reusable (SimBiology) | |
| | 3. Experimental data | 3. Experimental data: No | 3. Experimental data: No | |
| 3 | User interface for model structural description | Textual thus machine readable and adaptable | Graphical | Graphical |
| | (components and interconnections) | | ||
| 4 | Dynamic* model construction * Adaptive to experimental data collected, and structural change requests in time | Dynamic model construction is possible | Dynamic model construction is not possible | Dynamic model construction is not possible |
| 5 | Experimental data suppliable at the level of | Possible without any additional interface | Not possible without additional interface | Not possible without additional interface |
| physiological entities constituting the model |