| Literature DB >> 28193218 |
Thomas J Snowden1,2, Piet H van der Graaf2,3, Marcus J Tindall4,5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Systems Biology continues to produce increasingly large models of complex biochemical reaction networks. In applications requiring, for example, parameter estimation, the use of agent-based modelling approaches, or real-time simulation, this growing model complexity can present a significant hurdle. Often, however, not all portions of a model are of equal interest in a given setting. In such situations methods of model reduction offer one possible approach for addressing the issue of complexity by seeking to eliminate those portions of a pathway that can be shown to have the least effect upon the properties of interest.Entities:
Keywords: Controlled systems; Empirical balanced truncation; Lumping; Model reduction
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28193218 PMCID: PMC5307760 DOI: 10.1186/s12918-017-0397-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Syst Biol ISSN: 1752-0509
Fig. 1Proper vs improper lumping. a Proper lumping: each of the original state-variables (the left column) corresponds to, at most, one of the lumped state-variables (the right column). b Improper lumping: each of the original states can correspond to one or more of the lumped state-variables
Fig. 2A flow chart giving an overview of the order of steps performed in the combined algorithm. This chart only represents the high-level actions of the algorithm with many of the blocks representing subroutines that are somewhat more nuanced in practice. A detailed account of all steps can be found in the Additional file 1
Error results for the nonlinear methods of model reduction applied to the E. coli chemotaxis model
| Number of | Empirical balanced | Lumping | Combined method |
|---|---|---|---|
| dimensions | truncation | ||
| 6 | 1.396 | 0.15 | - |
| 5 | 1.655 | 0.51 | - |
| 4 |
| 0.54 | 0.51 |
| 3 |
| 4.77 | 2.00 |
| 2 |
| 12.88 | 2.84 |
| 1 |
| 75.56 | 21.86 |
Note: ‘ #’ implies Matlab could not numerically simulate this reduction using ode15s due to stiffness. ‘-’ implies the reduction error at this point was equal to the lumping error. The errors stated represent the maximal relative error between the original and reduced systems when simulated to steady-state under the introduction of 10μ M concentration of attractant ligand at t=0
Fig. 3Relative error between the original and reduced models of E. coli chemotaxis. These systems were simulated to steady-state under the introduction of 10μ M concentration of extracellular attractant at t=0. Figure depicts time varying errors incurred for the 3 and 2 dimensional reduced models under lumping applied in isolation and via the combined reduction algorithm
Fig. 4Timecourse of output from the original 11-dimensional and reduced, 2-dimensional models of E. coli chemotaxis. Here, the systems were simulated to steady-state under the introduction of 10μ M concentration of extracellular attractant at t=0
Comparison of reduction error and stiffness coefficients at each level of dimensional reduction for the E coli signalling model under different approaches to conservation analysis using the combined algorithm
| Dimensions | Naive elimination | Selective elimination | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lumping error ( | Stiffness | Lumping error ( | Stiffness | |
| 6 | 1.37 | 876.73 | 0.15 | 794.91 |
| 5 | 2.45 | 904.80 | 0.51 | 56.22 |
| 4 | 4.8 | 907.59 | 0.54 | 60.16 |
| 3 | 74.18 | 542.24 | 4.77 | 58.95 |
| 2 | 339.99 | 99.32 | 12.88 | 25.95 |
| 1 | 424.33 | 1 | 75.56 | 1 |
This table compares the effect of either naively or rigorously selecting which species to eliminate via the application of conservation relations. The errors stated represent the maximal relative error between the original and reduced systems when simulated to steady-state under the introduction of 10μ M concentration of attractant ligand at t=0
Comparison of maximal relative error under differing lumping inverses for the reduction of the E coli model via lumping in isolation
| Dimensions | Moore-Penrose | Steady-state | Average |
|---|---|---|---|
| 6 | 6.67 | 0.15 | 0.18 |
| 5 | 10.58 | 0.55 | 0.51 |
| 4 | 13.99 | 0.54 | 1.26 |
| 3 | 26.93 | 4.78 | 4.77 |
| 2 | 78.36 | 13.45 | 12.88 |
| 1 | 70.92 | 75.56 | 82.34 |
Each row represents a further level of dimensional reduction for the model, whilst the columns represent the different methods of lumping inverse. The ‘Moore-Penrose’ column contains values where the lumping inverse is the Moore-Penrose or pseudoinverse of the lumping matrix L. The ‘steady-state’ column contains values where the lumping inverse is selected to reconstruct the unperturbed steady-state values of the original system such that . The errors stated represent the maximal relative error between the original and reduced systems when simulated to steady-state under the introduction of 10μ M concentration of attractant ligand at t=0
Controllability and observability index values for the model of chemotactic signalling in E. Coli
| Species | Controllability | Observability | Input-output |
|---|---|---|---|
| CheA·CheY | 0.865 | 0.881 | 0.762 |
| CheA | 0.846 | 0.497 | 0.421 |
| CheY | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| CheY | 0.343 | 0.703 | 0.241 |
| CheB | 0.004 | 0.006 | 2×10−5 |
Fig. 5Reproduction of the block schematic depiction of the ERK activation model due to Sasagawa et al. [48]
Error results comparing the application of empirical balanced truncation, lumping, and the combined method of model reduction to the ERK activation model
| Dimension | EBT error | Lumping error | Stiffness | Combined error |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 75 | 0.76 | ≈0 | 42658 | − |
| 50 |
| 0.01 | 42633 | − |
| 25 |
| 0.52 | 10664 | − |
| 15 |
| 1.26 | 7934 | − |
| 14 |
| 2.21 | 7934 | − |
| 13 |
| 2.29 | 7934 | − |
| 12 |
| 1.21 | 1591 | − |
| 11 |
| 3.07 | 236 | − |
| 10 |
| 6.02 | 264 | 2.84 |
| 9 |
| 10.96 | 211 | 4.02 |
| 8 |
| 13.12 | 43 | 4.32 |
| 7 |
| 14.18 | 42 | 4.77 |
| 6 |
| 29.53 | 44 | 13.08 |
| 5 |
| 39.03 | 45 | 20.81 |
| 4 |
| 46.47 | 212 | 31.09 |
| 3 |
| 54.67 | 42 | 34.58 |
| 2 |
| 53.52 | 18 | 41.10 |
| 1 |
| 55.73 | 1 | 50.46 |
Note: ‘ #’ implies Matlab could not numerically simulate this reduction using ode15s due to issues associated with stiffness. ‘-’ implies the reduction error at this point was equal to the lumping error. The errors stated represent the maximal relative error between the original and reduced systems when simulated to steady-state under the introduction of agonist increasing the rate of EGF receptor binding by 50% at t=0. ∗ implies that the error was within the numerical tolerance of the simulator
Fig. 6Timecourses of the output from the original 99-dimensional and the reduced 8-dimensional systems. This plot emphasises the fact that the reduced model is designed to remain valid for any reasonable change in input. The system starts by being affected by an agonist that increases the rate of EGF binding by 25% for 50 minutes, at this point the input flips to an antagonist decreasing the rate of EGF binding by 50% and runs for the same time period. At any given time point the error between the original and reduced model exceeds no more than 5%
Controllability and observability index values for the model of ERK activation controlled via the EGFR pathway
| Lumped | Controllability | Observability | Input-output |
|---|---|---|---|
| state-variable | index | index | index |
|
| 0.3022 | 0.0176 | 0.0053 |
|
| 0.0201 | 0.0153 | 0.0003 |
|
| 0.0189 | 0.0009 | 1.681×10−5 |
|
| 0.8547 | 0.2752 | 0.2352 |
|
| 0.6194 | 0.0079 | 0.0049 |
|
| 1 | 1 | 1 |
|
| 0.1412 | 0.1043 | 0.0147 |
|
| 0.1378 | 0.0018 | 0.0003 |
|
| 0.1539 | 0.0164 | 0.0025 |
|
| 0.0473 | 0.0092 | 0.0004 |
|
| 0.3312 | 0.0442 | 0.0146 |