The misleading certainty of uncertain data in biological network processes
Irvin, M.; Ramanathan, A.; Lopez, C. F.
Show abstract
Mathematical models are often used to explore network-driven cellular processes from a systems perspective. However, a dearth of quantitative data suitable for model calibration leads to models with parameter unidentifiability and questionable predictive power. Here we introduce a Bayesian and Machine-Learning based Measurement Model approach to explore how quantitative and non-quantitative data constrain models of apoptosis execution within a missing data context. We find two orders of magnitude more ordinal (e.g. immunoblot) data are necessary to achieve accuracy comparable to quantitative (e.g. fluorescence) data. Notably, ordinal and nominal (e.g. immunostain) non-quantitative data synergize to reduce model uncertainty and improve accuracy. Further, model prediction accuracy and certainty strongly depend on rigorous data-driven formulations of the measurement, and the size and make-up of the datasets. Finally, we demonstrate the potential of a data-driven Measurement Model approach to identify model features that could lead to informative experimental measurements and improve model predictive power.
Matching journals
The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Emergent signal execution modes in biochemical reaction networks calibrated to experimental data 96%
- Population Dynamics of EMT Elucidates the Timing and Distribution of Phenotypic Intra-tumoral Heterogeneity 95%
- Random Parametric Perturbations of Gene Regulatory Circuit Uncover State Transitions in Cell Cycle 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Dissecting reversible and irreversible single cell state transitions from gene regulatory networks 94%
- Mechanistic model of MAPK signaling reveals how allostery and rewiring contribute to drug resistance 94%
- Cell-to-cell and type-to-type heterogeneity of signaling networks: Insights from the crowd 93%
"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.