Back

Semi-automatic model revision of Boolean regulatory networks: confronting time-series observations with (a)synchronous dynamics

Gouveia, F.; Lynce, I.; Monteiro, P. T.

2020-05-12 bioinformatics
10.1101/2020.05.10.086900 bioRxiv
Show abstract

MotivationComplex cellular processes can be represented by biological regulatory networks. Computational models of such networks have successfully allowed the reprodution of known behaviour and to have a better understanding of the associated cellular processes. However, the construction of these models is still mainly a manual task, and therefore prone to error. Additionally, as new data is acquired, existing models must be revised. Here, we propose a model revision approach of Boolean logical models capable of repairing inconsistent models confronted with time-series observations. Moreover, we account for both synchronous and asynchronous dynamics. ResultsThe proposed tool is tested on five well known biological models. Different time-series observations are generated, consistent with these models. Then, the models are corrupted with different random changes. The proposed tool is able to repair the majority of the corrupted models, considering the generated time-series observations. Moreover, all the optimal solutions to repair the models are produced. Contact{filipe.gouveia@tecnico.ulisboa.pt,pedro.tiago.monteiro@tecnico.ulisboa.pt}

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Bioinformatics
◐ 1204 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
23.4%
Similar papers in this journal
2
BMC Bioinformatics
○ 457 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
12.4%
Similar papers in this journal
3
Biosystems
○ 31 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
10.2%
Similar papers in this journal
4
PLOS ONE
● 5266 papers in training set
Top 24%
6.5%
Similar papers in this journal
50% of probability mass above
5
PLOS Computational Biology
● 1863 papers in training set
Top 6%
5.7%
Similar papers in this journal
6
Journal of Computational Biology
○ 48 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.8%
7
Scientific Reports
○ 3612 papers in training set
Top 39%
2.5%
8
Bioinformatics Advances
◐ 203 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.8%
9
Neuroinformatics
○ 46 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.8%
10
Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal
● 242 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.8%
11
Frontiers in Neuroinformatics
○ 41 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.4%
12
IEEE/ACM Transactions on Computational Biology and Bioinformatics
● 38 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.2%
13
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
○ 43 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.2%
14
PeerJ
◐ 308 papers in training set
Top 8%
1.1%
15
Peer Community Journal
● 281 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.0%
16
iScience
○ 1154 papers in training set
Top 30%
1.0%
17
Frontiers in Systems Biology
○ 10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
0.9%
18
Royal Society Open Science
● 214 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.6%
19
Briefings in Bioinformatics
◐ 354 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.6%
20
Frontiers in Genetics
○ 230 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.6%
21
Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
○ 98 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.6%
22
Frontiers in Physiology
○ 106 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.6%
23
Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence
○ 20 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
0.5%
24
Computational Biology and Chemistry
○ 28 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.5%
25
GigaScience
◐ 212 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.5%
26
Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine
○ 28 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.5%
27
IFAC-PapersOnLine
○ 13 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.5%
28
IEEE Access
● 35 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.5%
29
Expert Systems with Applications
○ 11 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.5%
30
Ecology and Evolution
○ 267 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.5%

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.