Back

Physics-Informed Neural Networks for Parameter Recovery in the Repressilator Oscillatory Model

Casajuana, B.; Casals-Franch, R.; Lopez Garcia de Lomana, A.; Marti-Puig, P.; Villa-Freixa, J.

2026-05-15 bioinformatics
10.64898/2026.05.12.724679 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Parameter estimation in nonlinear biological dynamical systems is a difficult inverse problem because the governing equations are often stiff or oscillatory, the data are sparse and noisy, and the objective landscape is non-convex. Physics-informed neural networks (PINNs) offer an alternative to purely simulation-based calibration by representing state trajectories with neural networks while penalizing violations of the governing equations. This paper studies the empirical reliability of PINNs for recovering the parameters of the repressilator, a synthetic genetic oscillator formed by three cyclically repressive genes. We use synthetic time-series generated from the standard ordinary differential equation model and train inverse PINNs to estimate the production parameter {beta} and the Hill coefficient n. The study varies observation noise, partial observation of repressors, sampling density, sensitivity to initial parameter guesses, and the difference between stable and oscillatory regimes. The results show that PINNs can reconstruct trajectories accurately when the model structure is correct and the three repressors are observed, but parameter recovery is more fragile than trajectory fitting. Noise, sparse sampling, unobserved variables, and unfavorable initial guesses increase the risk of biased estimates. The stable regime is easier to reconstruct, whereas the oscillatory regime provides richer information but also exposes optimization sensitivity. These findings support PINNs as a useful reverse-engineering tool for small gene-regulatory ODE models, while highlighting the need for repeated runs, uncertainty reporting, and experimental designs that improve identifiability.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
38.6%
2
Bioinformatics
1061 papers in training set
Top 3%
10.3%
3
BMC Bioinformatics
383 papers in training set
Top 2%
4.0%
50% of probability mass above
4
Mathematical Biosciences
42 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.7%
5
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 42%
2.9%
6
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 43%
2.8%
7
Journal of The Royal Society Interface
189 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.9%
8
Physical Review E
95 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.9%
9
IFAC-PapersOnLine
12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.9%
10
Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal
216 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.8%
11
Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience
53 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.8%
12
Biophysical Journal
545 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.7%
13
npj Systems Biology and Applications
99 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.5%
14
Physical Biology
43 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.3%
15
Mathematics
11 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.3%
16
Neural Computation
36 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.0%
17
ACS Synthetic Biology
256 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.0%
18
in silico Plants
24 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.9%
19
Bioinformatics Advances
184 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
20
Journal of Bioinformatics and Systems Biology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.8%
21
Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation
126 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.7%
22
Journal of Theoretical Biology
144 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
23
Frontiers in Genetics
197 papers in training set
Top 10%
0.7%
24
Bulletin of Mathematical Biology
84 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
25
eneuro
389 papers in training set
Top 11%
0.5%
26
Chaos, Solitons & Fractals
32 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.5%
27
Frontiers in Neuroscience
223 papers in training set
Top 9%
0.5%