Near-optimal experimental design for model selection in systems biology

Bioinformatics

Volumn 29, Issue 20, 2013, Pages 2625-2632

  Busetto, Alberto Giovanni ^a,b   Hauser, Alain ^a   Krummenacher, Gabriel ^a   Sunnåker, Mikael ^a,b,c   Dimopoulos, Sotiris ^a,b,c   Ong, Cheng Soon ^d   Stelling, Jörg ^a,c   Buhmann, Joachim M ^a,b  

^a ETH ZURICH   (Switzerland)

^b Competence Center for Systems Physiology and Metabolic Diseases ^*  (Switzerland)

^c SWISS INSTITUTE OF BIOINFORMATICS   (Switzerland)

^d CSIRO   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

TARGET OF RAPAMYCIN KINASE;

ANIMAL; ARTICLE; COMPUTER PROGRAM; METABOLISM; METHODOLOGY; PROBABILITY; SIGNAL TRANSDUCTION; SYSTEMS BIOLOGY; THEORETICAL MODEL; PROCEDURES;

ANIMALS; MODELS, THEORETICAL; PROBABILITY; RESEARCH DESIGN; SIGNAL TRANSDUCTION; SOFTWARE; SYSTEMS BIOLOGY; TOR SERINE-THREONINE KINASES;

EID: 84885615538     PISSN: 13674803     EISSN: 14602059     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btt436     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Atkinson, A.C. and Fedorov, V.V. (1975) Optimal design: Experiments for discriminating between several models. Biometrika, 62, 289-303
2. Atkinson, A. et al. (2007) Optimum Experimental Designs, with SAS. Vol. 34,Oxford University Press, Oxford
3. Baldi, P. and Itti, L. (2010) Of bits and wows: A Bayesian theory of surprise with applications to attention. Neural Netw., 23, 649-666
4. Balsa-Canto, E. et al. (2008) Computational procedures for optimal experimental design in biological systems. IET Syst. Biol., 2, 163-172
5. Bandara, S. et al. (2009) Optimal experimental design for parameter estimation of a cell signaling model. PLoS Comput. Biol., 5, e1000558
6. Bergman, R.N. et al. (1979) Quantitative estimation of insulin sensitivity. Am. J. Physiol., 236, E667-E677
7. Box, G.E.P. and Hill, W.J. (1967) Discrimination among mechanistic models. Technometrics, 9, 57-71
8. Busetto, A.G (2012) Information theoretic modeling of dynamical systems. PhD Thesis, Department of Computer Science, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
9. Busetto, A.G. and Buhmann, J.M. (2009a) Stable Bayesian parameter estimation for biological dynamical systems. In: International Conference on Computational Science and Engineering, CSE 2009. Vol. 1. IEEE, pp. 148-157
10. Busetto, A.G. and Buhmann, J.M. (2009b) Structure identification by optimized interventions. In: Journal of Machine Learning Research Proceedings of the International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics. Clearwater Beach, FL, pp. 49-56
11. Busetto, A.G. et al. (2009) Optimized expected information gain for nonlinear dynamical systems. In: Proceedings of the 26th Annual International Conference on Machine Learning. ACM, pp. 97-104
12. Cover, T.M and Thomas, J.A. (2012) Elements of Information Theory. Wiley-Interscience, New York
13. Daunizeau, J. et al. (2011) Optimizing experimental design for comparing models of brain function. PLoS Comput. Biol., 7, e1002280
14. Doucet, A. and Tadić V.B. (2003) Parameter estimation in general state-space models using particle methods. Ann. Inst. Stat. Math., 55, 409-422
15. Düvel, K. et al. (2003) Multiple roles of Tap42 in mediating rapamycin-induced transcriptional changes in yeast. Mol. Cell, 11, 1467-1478
16. Faller, D. et al. (2003) Simulation methods for optimal experimental design in systems biology. Simulation, 79, 717-725
17. Feige, U. (1998) A threshold of ln(n) for approximating set cover. J. ACM, 45, 634-652
18. Hauser, A. (2009) Entropy-based experimental design for model selection in systems biology. Masters Thesis, Department of Computer Science, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
19. Kitano, H. (2002) Computational systems biology. Nature, 420, 206-210
20. Ková cs, L. et al. (2010) New principles and adequate robust control methods for artificial pancreas. In: Computational Intelligence in Engineering. Springer, Berlin, pp. 75-86
21. Kramer, A. and Radde, N. (2010) Towards experimental design using a Bayesian framework for parameter identification in dynamic intracellular network models. Procedia Comput. Sci., 1, 1645-1653
22. Krause, A. (2010) SFO: A toolbox for submodular function optimization. J. Mach. Learn. Res., 11, 1141-1144
23. Krause, A. and Guestrin, C. (2005) Near-optimal nonmyopic value of information in graphical models. In: Twenty-first Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence. p. 5
24. Krause, A. and Guestrin, C. (2007) Near-optimal observation selection using submodular functions. Vol. 7. AAAI Press, Vancouver, BA.
25. Kreutz, C. and Timmer, J. (2009) Systems biology: Experimental design. FEBS J., 276, 923-942
26. Krummenacher, G. (2010) Large-scale experimental design toolbox for systems biology. Masters Thesis, Department of Computer Science, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
27. Kuepfer, L. et al. (2007) Ensemble modeling for analysis of cell signaling dynamics. Nat. Biotechnol., 25, 1001-1006
28. Liepe, J. et al. (2013) Maximizing the information content of experiments in systems biology. PLoS Comput. Biol., 9, e1002888
29. Minoux, M. (1978) Accelerated greedy algorithms for maximizing submodular set functions. In: Optimization Techniques. Springer, Berlin, pp. 234-243
30. Myung, J.I. and Pitt, M.A. (2009) Optimal experimental design for model discrimination. Psychol. Rev., 116, 499
31. Nelles, O. (2001) Nonlinear System Identification. Springer, Berlin
32. Nemhauser, G.L. et al. (1978) An analysis of approximations for maximizing submodular set functions. Math. Programs, 14, 265-294
33. Ponce De Leon, A.C. and Atkinson, A.C. (1991) Optimum experimental design for discriminating between two rival models in the presence of prior information. Biometrika, 78, 601-608
34. Raman, K. and Wagner, A. (2011) Evolvability and robustness in a complex signalling circuit. Mol. BioSyst., 7, 1081-1092
35. Skanda, D. and Lebiedz, D. (2010) An optimal experimental design approach to model discrimination in dynamic biochemical systems. Bioinformatics, 26, 939-945
36. Steinke, F. et al. (2007) Experimental design for efficient identification of gene regulatory networks using sparse Bayesian models. BMC Syst. Biol., 1, 51
37. Sunnåker, M. et al. (2013a) Automatic generation of predictive dynamic models reveals nuclear phosphorylation as the key Msn2 control mechanism. Sci. Signal., 6, ra41
38. Sunnåker, M. et al. (2013b) Approximate Bayesian computation. PLoS Comput. Biol., 9, e1002803
39. Szállási, Z et al. (2006) System Modeling in Cell Biology: From Concepts to Nuts and Bolts. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
40. Xu, T.-R. et al. (2010) Inferring signaling pathway topologies from multiple perturbation measurements of specific biochemical species. Sci. Signal., 3, ra20
41. Zhong, Q. et al. (2012) Unsupervised modeling of cell morphology dynamics for time-lapse microscopy. Nat. Methods, 9, 711-713