Cited by 11Gene Regulatory Network AnalysisMathematical Biology Tumor GrowthBioinformatics and Genomic Networks

Selecting Optimal Models Based on Efficiency and Robustness in Multi-valued Biological Networks

Sedghamiz, Hooman, Chen, Wenxiang, Rice, Mark, Whitley, Darrell, Broderick, Gordon·2017·2017 IEEE 17th International Conference on Bioinformatics and Bioengineering (BIBE)

Abstract

In this paper, we propose an optimization algorithm for literature-derived model and parameter identification in multi-valued biological regulatory networks. Our approach is a multi-objective optimization method where the objectives are inspired from structural Efficiency, dynamical Robustness and biological selectivity of cells in their actions. Given an incomplete model derived from literature and partially instrumented clinical observations, our method identifies the optimal model parameterization by maximizing structural Efficiency, dynamical Robustness and Selectivity. As the parameterization space is super exponential, we implemented our method in a constraint satisfaction framework by defining logical equivalences of the dynamical features. The implemented framework is then solved with a lazy clause solver known as Chuffed. We apply our method on female Hypothalamic-Pituitary-Gonadal axis (HPG) and demonstrate how it is able to identify a model that reproduces the complex menstrual cycle. The algorithm found a structure and parameterization for the 5 node 14 edge (≈ 50% edge density) HPG model with a normalized length cost and robustness of 1.46 and 0.35 respectively in 713 seconds on an Intel core i7 machine.Our method discovered that there are at least 6 more regulatory interactions that must be added to the commonly accepted HPG basic model in order to reproduce the menstrual cycle efficiently and robustly. The discovery of additional interactions suggest that our algorithm provides new insight to the biological model identification by combining the information from literature, clinical measurements and dynamical parameters.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/bibe.2017.00-55

Cites

9 of 9 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 10 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sedghamiz, H., Chen, W., Rice, M., Whitley, D., & Broderick, G.
Affiliations
  • Rochester General Hospital (US)
  • Colorado State University (US)
  • Rochester Institute of Technology (US)
Venue
2017 IEEE 17th International Conference on Bioinformatics and Bioengineering (BIBE)
Publisher
IEEE
Published
2017-10
Pages
200-205
ISSN
2159-5410 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2783487549
Cited by
11
References
10
Citations by year
2024: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 2
FWCI
6.10
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
IEEE International Conference on Bioinformatics and Bioengineering (BIBE) (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gene Regulatory Network Analysis
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Modeling and Simulation › Mathematical Biology Tumor Growth
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Bioinformatics and Genomic Networks
Keywords
biological regulatory networks, model parameter identification, multi-objective optimization, structural efficiency, dynamical robustness, selectivity, constraint satisfaction, hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal axis, menstrual cycle, regulatory interactions

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review