4.7 Article

Accurate hybrid stochastic simulation of a system of coupled chemical or biochemical reactions

期刊

JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL PHYSICS
卷 122, 期 5, 页码 -

出版社

AMER INST PHYSICS
DOI: 10.1063/1.1835951

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIGMS NIH HHS [GM08347] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The dynamical solution of a well-mixed, nonlinear stochastic chemical kinetic system, described by the Master equation, may be exactly computed using the stochastic simulation algorithm. However, because the computational cost scales with the number of reaction occurrences, systems with one or more fast reactions become costly to simulate. This paper describes a hybrid stochastic method that partitions the system into subsets of fast and slow reactions, approximates the fast reactions as a continuous Markov process, using a chemical Langevin equation, and accurately describes the slow dynamics using the integral form of the Next Reaction variant of the stochastic simulation algorithm. The key innovation of this method is its mechanism of efficiently monitoring the occurrences of slow, discrete events while simultaneously simulating the dynamics of a continuous, stochastic or deterministic process. In addition, by introducing an approximation in which multiple slow reactions may occur within a time step of the numerical integration of the chemical Langevin equation, the hybrid stochastic method performs much faster with only a marginal decrease in accuracy. Multiple examples, including a biological pulse generator and a large-scale system benchmark, are simulated using the exact and proposed hybrid methods as well as, for comparison, a previous hybrid stochastic method. Probability distributions of the solutions are compared and the weak errors of the first two moments are computed. In general, these hybrid methods may be applied to the simulation of the dynamics of a system described by stochastic differential, ordinary differential, and Master equations. (C) 2005 American Institute of Physics.

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

4.7
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