4.6 Article

Quantifying Parameter Interdependence in Stochastic Discrete Models of Biochemical Systems

期刊

ENTROPY
卷 25, 期 8, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/e25081168

关键词

stochastic simulation algorithm; stochastic biochemical systems; sensitivity analysis; finite-difference methods; parameter subset selection; estimability analysis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Stochastic modeling of biochemical processes at the cellular level has gained significant attention in recent years. This paper proposes a technique for detecting collinearity among parameters in mathematical models and applies it to select subsets of parameters that can be estimated accurately. The method is successfully tested on several practical models of biochemical systems.
Stochastic modeling of biochemical processes at the cellular level has been the subject of intense research in recent years. The Chemical Master Equation is a broadly utilized stochastic discrete model of such processes. Numerous important biochemical systems consist of many species subject to many reactions. As a result, their mathematical models depend on many parameters. In applications, some of the model parameters may be unknown, so their values need to be estimated from the experimental data. However, the problem of parameter value inference can be quite challenging, especially in the stochastic setting. To estimate accurately the values of a subset of parameters, the system should be sensitive with respect to variations in each of these parameters and they should not be correlated. In this paper, we propose a technique for detecting collinearity among models' parameters and we apply this method for selecting subsets of parameters that can be estimated from the available data. The analysis relies on finite-difference sensitivity estimations and the singular value decomposition of the sensitivity matrix. We illustrated the advantages of the proposed method by successfully testing it on several models of biochemical systems of practical interest.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据