Back

Covariant Biochemical Systems Theory: cBST1~cBST3 Descriptors and Quantitative Validation

Oosawa, C.

2026-07-29 systems biology
10.64898/2026.07.26.732504 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Biochemical Systems Theory (BST) represents nonlinear biochemical rate laws by local power-law approximations in logarithmic concentration coordinates. First-order coefficients are elasticities, whereas higher-order derivatives describe local log-synergism and its variation. Ordinary higher derivatives, however, are not tensorial under nonlinear reparameterizations and can mix biochemical response structure with coordinate artifacts. We formulate a covariant hierarchy, cBST1-cBST3, on a positive operating-point space equipped with a declared reference connection. cBST1 recovers classical elasticities in a flat logarithmic chart, cBST2 is the covariant Hessian of the log-response, and cBST3 is the symmetrized covariant derivative of cBST2. The framework is quantitatively evaluated using three representative rate laws from the curated yeast glycolysis model BIOMD0000000064: glucose transport, glucose phosphorylation, and phosphofructokinase. For 10,000 finite log-concentration perturbations at each of five radii, cBST2 reduced the cBST1 log-rate root-mean-square error by 96.6-98.6% at the largest tested radius, and cBST3 provided a further 68.4-98.1% reduction. The contracted cBST2 and cBST3 terms strongly predicted the corresponding lower-order truncation errors. Under the nonlinear transformation qi = sinh(ui), covariant contractions agreed across coordinates to within a 95th-percentile relative error of 1.2 x 10-13, whereas ordinary higher derivatives showed order-unity coordinate mismatches. Supplementary analytic tests recovered the expected second-, third-, and fourth-order truncation-error scaling. These results show that cBST1-cBST3 are not only coordinate-consistent descriptors but also practical diagnostics of where local power-law approximations require higher-order correction.

Matching journals

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

50% of probability mass above

"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.