Inference for Stochastic Chemical Kinetics Using Moment Equations and System Size Expansion

PLoS Computational Biology

Volumn 12, Issue 7, 2016, Pages

  Fröhlich, Fabian ^a,b   Thomas, Philipp ^c   Kazeroonian, Atefeh ^a,b   Theis, Fabian J ^a,b   Grima, Ramon ^d   Hasenauer, Jan ^a,b  

^a INSTITUTE OF EPIDEMIOLOGY   (Germany)

^b TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY OF MUNICH   (Germany)

^c IMPERIAL COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^d UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIOLOGICAL SYSTEMS; POPULATION STATISTICS; RANDOM PROCESSES; STOCHASTIC MODELS; STOCHASTIC SYSTEMS;

CLOSURE SYSTEMS; MECHANISTIC MODELS; MOMENT CLOSURE APPROXIMATIONS; MOMENT EQUATIONS; RATE EQUATIONS; REACTIONS RATES; SIMULATION EXAMPLE; SIZE EXPANSIONS; STOCHASTIC CHEMICAL KINETICS; SYSTEM SIZE;

UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS;

ERYTHROPOIETIN RECEPTOR; JANUS KINASE; STAT5 PROTEIN;

ARTICLE; BAYES THEOREM; CHEMICAL REACTION KINETICS; CONTROLLED STUDY; ENZYME DEGRADATION; MARKOV CHAIN; MEASUREMENT ACCURACY; MOMENT CLOSURE APPROXIMATION; MONTE CARLO METHOD; NOISE; PROBLEM SOLVING; PROTEIN LOCALIZATION; PROTEIN PHOSPHORYLATION; RATE CONSTANT; RELIABILITY; RNA SEQUENCE; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SIGNAL TRANSDUCTION; SYSTEM SIZE EXPANSION; SYSTEMATIC ERROR; UNCERTAINTY; VALIDATION PROCESS; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; KINETICS; PHYSIOLOGY; PROCEDURES; SINGLE CELL ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL MODEL; SYSTEMS BIOLOGY;

KINETICS; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; MODELS, STATISTICAL; SIGNAL TRANSDUCTION; SINGLE-CELL ANALYSIS; STOCHASTIC PROCESSES; SYSTEMS BIOLOGY;

EID: 84979993777     PISSN: 1553734X     EISSN: 15537358     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005030     Document Type: Article

References (97)

1. Elowitz MB, Levine AJ, Siggia ED, Swain PS, Stochastic gene expression in a single cell. Science; 2002;297(5584):1183–1186. doi: 10.1126/science.107091912183631
2. Rosenfeld N, Young JW, Alon U, Swain PS, Elowitz MB, Gene regulation at the single-cell level. Science; 2005;307(5717):1962–1965. doi: 10.1126/science.110691415790856
3. Raj A, van Oudenaarden A, Nature, nurture, or chance: Stochastic gene expression and its consequences. Cell; 2008;135(2):216–226. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2008.09.05018957198
4. Maheshri N, O’Shea EK, Living with noisy genes: how cells function reliably with inherent variability in gene expression. Annu Rev Biophys Biomol Struct; 2007;36:413–434. doi: 10.1146/annurev.biophys.36.040306.13270517477840
5. Gillespie DT, A rigorous derivation of the chemical master equation. Physica A; 1992;188(1):404–425. doi: 10.1016/0378-4371(92)90283-V
6. Wilkinson DJ. Parameter inference for stochastic kinetic models of bacterial gene regulation: A Bayesian approach to systems biology. In: Bernardo JM, Bayarri MJ, amd A P Dawid JOB, Heckerman D, Smith AFM, West M, editors. Proc. of 9th Valencia Int. Meet. (Bayesian Statistics 9), Valencia, Spain. Oxford University Press; 2010. p. 679–705.
7. Toni T, Stumpf MPH, Simulation-based model selection for dynamical systems in systems and population biology. Bioinf; 2010;26(1):104–110. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btp619
8. Fuchs C, Inference for diffusion processes with applications in life sciences. 1st ed. Berlin / Heidelberg: Springer; 2013.
9. Mikeev L, Wolf V. Parameter estimation for stochastic hybrid models of biochemical reaction networks. In: Proc. of the 15th ACM International Conference on Hybrid Systems: Computation and Control. New York, NY, USA: ACM; 2012. p. 155–166.
10. Milner P, Gillespie CS, Wilkinson DJ, Moment closure based parameter inference of stochastic kinetic models. Stat Comp; 2013;23(2):287–295. doi: 10.1007/s11222-011-9310-8
11. Zechner C, Unger M, Pelet S, Peter M, Koeppl H, Scalable inference of heterogeneous reaction kinetics from pooled single-cell recordings. Nat Meth; 2014;11:197–202. doi: 10.1038/nmeth.2794
12. Kazeev V, Khammash M, Nip M, Schwab C, Direct solution of the Chemical Master Equation using quantized tensor trains. PLoS Comput Biol; 2014;10(3):e1003359. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.100335924626049
13. Loos C, Marr C, Theis FJ, Hasenauer J, Roux O, Bourdon J, Approximate Bayesian Computation for stochastic single-cell time-lapse data using multivariate test statistics. In: Computational Methods in Systems Biology. vol. 9308 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer International Publishing; 2015. p. 52–63.
14. Munsky B, Khammash M, Identification from stochastic cell-to-cell variation: a genetic switch case study. IET Syst Biol; 2010;4(6):356–366. doi: 10.1049/iet-syb.2010.001321073235
15. Nüesch T. Finite state projection-based parameter estimation algorithms for stochastic chemical kinetics [Master Thesis]. Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Zürich; 2010.
16. Hasenauer J, Radde N, Doszczak M, Scheurich P, Allgöwer F. Parameter estimation for the CME from noisy binned snapshot data: Formulation as maximum likelihood problem; 2011. Extended abstract at Conf. of Stoch. Syst. Biol., Monte Verita, Switzerland.
17. Zechner C, Ruess J, Krenn P, Pelet S, Peter M, Lygeros J, et al. Moment-based inference predicts bimodality in transient gene expression. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A; 2012;109(21):8340–8345. doi: 10.1073/pnas.120016110922566653
18. Kazeroonian A, Hasenauer J, Theis FJ. Parameter estimation for stochastic biochemical processes: A comparison of moment equation and finite state projection. In: Autio R, Shmulevich I, Strimmer K, Wiuf C, Sarbu S, Yli-Harja O, editors. Proceedings of 10th International Workshop on Computational Systems Biology. Tampere, Finland: Tampere International Center for Signal Processing; 2013. p. 66–73.
19. Lillacci G, Khammash M, The signal within the noise: efficient inference of stochastic gene regulation models using fluorescence histograms and stochastic simulations. Bioinf; 2013;29(18):2311–2319. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btt380
20. Neuert G, Munsky B, Tan RZ, Teytelman L, Khammash M, van Oudenaarden A, Systematic identification of signal-activated stochastic gene regulation. Science; 2013;339(6119):584–587. doi: 10.1126/science.123145623372015
21. Gillespie DT, Exact stochastic simulation of coupled chemical reactions. J Phys Chem; 1977;81(25):2340–2361. doi: 10.1021/j100540a008
22. Munsky B, Khammash M, The finite state projection algorithm for the solution of the chemical master equation. J Chem Phys; 2006;124(4):044104. doi: 10.1063/1.214588216460146
23. Grima R, A study of the accuracy of moment-closure approximations for stochastic chemical kinetics. J Chem Phys; 2012;136(15):154105. doi: 10.1063/1.370284822519313
24. van Kampen NG, Stochastic processes in physics and chemistry. 3rd ed. Amsterdam: North-Holland; 2007. doi: 10.1016/B978-044452965-7/50010-6
25. Beaumont MA, Zhang W, Balding DJ, Approximate Bayesian Computation in population genetics. Genetics; 2002;162(4):2025–2035. 12524368
26. Robert CP, Cornuet JM, Marin JM, Pillai NS, Lack of confidence in Approximate Bayesian Computation model choice. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A; 2011;108(37):15112–15117. doi: 10.1073/pnas.110290010821876135
27. Mateescu M, Wolf V, Didier F, Henzinger TA, Fast adaptive uniformisation of the chemical master equation. IET Syst Biol; 2010;4(6):441–452. doi: 10.1049/iet-syb.2010.000521073242
28. Sunkara V, Hegland M, An optimal Finite State Projection method. Procedia Computer Science; 2010;1(1):1579–1586. doi: 10.1016/j.procs.2010.04.177
29. Engblom S, Computing the moments of high dimensional solutions of the master equation. Appl Math Comp; 2006;180:498–515. doi: 10.1016/j.amc.2005.12.032
30. Lee CH, Kim KH, Kim P, A moment closure method for stochastic reaction networks. J Chem Phys; 2009;130(13):134107. doi: 10.1063/1.310326419355717
31. Gillespie CS, Moment-closure approximations for mass-action models. IET Syst Biol; 2009;3(1):52–58. doi: 10.1049/iet-syb:2007003119154084
32. Ale A, Kirk P, Stumpf MPH, A general moment expansion method for stochastic kinetic models. J Chem Phys; 2013;138(17):174101. doi: 10.1063/1.480247523656108
33. Schnoerr D, Sanguinetti G, Grima R, Comparison of different moment-closure approximations for stochastic chemical kinetics. The Journal of Chemical Physics; 2015;143(18). doi: 10.1063/1.493499026567686
34. Whittle P, On the use of the normal approximation in the treatment of stochastic processes. J R Stat Soc B; 1957;19(2):268–281.
35. Singh A, Hespanha JP. Lognormal moment closures for biochemical reactions. In: Proc. IEEE Conf. on Dec. and Contr. (CDC); 2006. p. 2063–2068.
36. Grima R, An effective rate equation approach to reaction kinetics in small volumes: Theory and application to biochemical reactions in nonequilibrium steady-state conditions. J Chem Phys; 2010;133(035101).
37. Grima R, Construction and accuracy of partial differential equation approximations to the chemical master equation. Physical Review E; 2011;84(5 Pt 2):056109. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.84.056109
38. Schnoerr D, Sanguinetti G, Grima R, Validity conditions for moment closure approximations in stochastic chemical kinetics. J Chem Phys; 2014;141(8):084103. doi: 10.1063/1.489283825173001
39. Munsky B, Trinh B, Khammash M, Listening to the noise: random fluctuations reveal gene network parameters. Mol Syst Biol; 2009;5(318). doi: 10.1038/msb.2009.7519888213
40. Komorowski M, Costa MJ, Rand DA, Stumpf MPH, Sensitivity, robustness, and identifiability in stochastic chemical kinetics models. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A; 2011;108(21):8645–8650. doi: 10.1073/pnas.101581410821551095
41. Chis OT, Banga JR, Balsa-Canto E, Structural identifiability of systems biology models: A critical comparison of methods. PLoS ONE; 2011;6(11):e27755. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.002775522132135
42. Raue A, Schilling M, Bachmann J, Matteson A, Schelke M, Kaschek D, et al. Lessons learned from quantitative dynamical modeling in systems biology. PLoS ONE; 2013;8(9):e74335. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.007433524098642
43. Grima R, Linear-noise approximation and the chemical master equation agree up to second-order moments for a class of chemical systems. Phys Rev E; 2015;92:042124. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.92.042124
44. Ramaswamy R, González-Segredo N, Sbalzarini I, Grima R, Discreteness-induced concentration inversion in mesoscopic chemical systems. Nat Comm; 2012;3(779).
45. Thomas P, Matuschek H, Grima R, How reliable is the linear noise approximation of gene regulatory networks?BMC Genomics; 2013;14(Suppl 4)(S5). doi: 10.1186/1471-2164-14-S4-S524266939
46. Kazeroonian A, Fröhlich F, Raue A, Theis FJ, Hasenauer J, CERENA: ChEmical REaction Network Analyzer—A Toolbox for the Simulation and Analysis of Stochastic Chemical Kinetics. PLoS ONE; 2016;11(1):e0146732. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.014673226807911
47. Elf J, Ehrenberg M, Fast evaluation of fluctuations in biochemical networks with the linear noise approximation. Genome Res; 2003;13:2475–2484. doi: 10.1101/gr.119650314597656
48. Ruess J, Lygeros J, Moment-based methods for parameter inference and experiment design for stochastic biochemical reaction networks. ACM Transactions on Modeling and Computer Simulation (TOMACS); 2015;25(2):8. doi: 10.1145/2688906
49. Coleman TF, Li Y, On the convergence of reflective Newton Methods for large-scale nonlinear minimization subject to bounds. Math Prog; 1992;p. 1–36.
50. Coleman TF, Li Y, An interior trust region approach for nonlinear minimization subject to bounds. SIAM J Optim; 1996;6:418–445. doi: 10.1137/0806023
51. Hindmarsh AC, Brown PN, Grant KE, Lee SL, Serban R, Shumaker DE, et al. SUNDIALS: Suite of Nonlinear and Differential/Algebraic Equation Solvers. ACM T Math Software; 2005;31(3):363–396. doi: 10.1145/1089014.1089020
52. More JJ, The Levenberg-Marquardt algorithm: Implementation and theory. Lecture Notes in Mathematics; 1978;630:105–116. doi: 10.1007/BFb0067700
53. Raue A, Kreutz C, Maiwald T, Bachmann J, Schilling M, Klingmüller U, et al. Structural and practical identifiability analysis of partially observed dynamical models by exploiting the profile likelihood. Bioinf; 2009;25(25):1923–1929. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btp358
54. Murphy SA, van der Vaart AW, On profile likelihood. J Am Stat Assoc; 2000;95(450):449–485. doi: 10.1080/01621459.2000.10474219
55. Raue A, Kreutz C, Theis FJ, Timmer J, Joining forces of Bayesian and frequentist methodology: A study for inference in the presence of non-identifiability. Phil Trans Royal Soc A; 2013;371 (1984).
56. Wilkinson DJ, Bayesian methods in bioinformatics and computational systems biology. Briefings in Bioinf; 2007;8(2):109–116. doi: 10.1093/bib/bbm007
57. Girolami M, Calderhead B, Riemann manifold Langevin and Hamiltonian Monte Carlo methods. J R Statist Soc B; 2011;73(2):123–214. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9868.2010.00765.x
58. Venzon D, Moolgavkar S, A Method for Computing Profile-Likelihood Based Confidence Intervals. Applied Statistics; 1988;37(1):87–94. doi: 10.2307/2347496
59. Fröhlich F, Theis FJ, Hasenauer J. Uncertainty analysis for non-identifiable dynamical systems: Profile likelihoods, bootstrapping and more. In: Mendes P, Dada JO, Smallbone KO, editors. Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Computational Methods in Systems Biology (CMSB 2014), Manchester, UK. Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics. Springer International Publishing Switzerland; 2014. p. 61–72.
60. Haario H, Laine M, Mira A, Saksman E, DRAM: Efficient adaptive MCMC. Stat Comp; 2006;16(4):339–354. doi: 10.1007/s11222-006-9438-0
61. Akaike H, On the likelihood of a time series model. The Statistician; 1978;27(3/4):217–235. doi: 10.2307/2988185
62. Schwarz G, Estimating the dimension of a model. Ann Statist; 1978;6(2):461–464. doi: 10.1214/aos/1176344136
63. Huber-Carol C, Balakrishnan N, Nikulin M, Mesbah M, Goodness-of-fit tests and model validity. Statistics for Industry and Technology. BirkhäuserBasel; 2002.
64. Jaqaman K, Danuser G, Linking data to models: Data regression. Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology; 2006;7:813–819. doi: 10.1038/nrm203017006434
65. Papoulis A, Probability, Random Variables, and Stochastic Processes. Tata McGraw-Hill; 2002.
66. Koch KR, Parameter estimation and hypothesis testing in linear models. Springer-VerlagBerlin Heidelberg; 1999. doi: 10.1007/978-3-662-03976-2
67. Swameye I, Müller TG, Timmer J, Sandra O, Klingmüller U, Identification of nucleocytoplasmic cycling as a remote sensor in cellular signaling by databased modeling. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A; 2003;100(3):1028–1033. doi: 10.1073/pnas.023733310012552139
68. Rawlings JS, Rosler KM, Harrison DA, The JAK/STAT signaling pathway. J Cell Sci; 2004;117(Pt 8):1281–1283. doi: 10.1242/jcs.0096315020666
69. Spivak JL, Gascón P, Ludwig H, Anemia management in oncology and hematology. Oncologist; 2009;14 (Suppl 1):43–56. doi: 10.1634/theoncologist.2009-S1-4319762516
70. Hedley BD, Chu JE, Ormond DG, Beausoleil MS, Boasie A, Allan AL, et al. Recombinant human erythropoietin in combination with chemotherapy increases breast cancer metastasis in preclinical mouse models. Clin Cancer Res; 2011;17(19):6151–6162. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-10-329821856770
71. Bachmann J, Raue A, Schilling M, Böhm ME, Kreutz C, Kaschek D, et al. Division of labor by dual feedback regulators controls JAK2/STAT5 signaling over broad ligand range. Mol Syst Biol; 2011;516(7).
72. Liao S, Vejchodský T, Erban R, Tensor methods for parameter estimation and bifurcation analysis of stochastic reaction networks. Journal of The Royal Society Interface; 2015;12(108). doi: 10.1098/rsif.2015.0233
73. Kügler P, Moment fitting for parameter inference in repeatedly and partially observed stochastic biological models. PloS one; 2012;7(8):e43001. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.004300122900079
74. Rabindran S, Haroun R, Clos J, Wisniewski J, Wu C, Regulation of heat shock factor trimer formation: role of a conserved leucine zipper. Science; 1993;259(5092):230–234. doi: 10.1126/science.84217838421783
75. Kim E, Cho KO, Rothschild A, Sheng M, Heteromultimerization and NMDA Receptor-Clustering Activity of Chapsyn-110, a Member of the PSD-95 Family of Proteins. Neuron; 1996;17(1):103–113. doi: 10.1016/S0896-6273(00)80284-68755482
76. Golding I, Paulsson J, Zawilski SM, Cox EC, Real-time kinetics of gene activity in individual bacteria. Cell; 2005;123(6):1025–1036. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2005.09.03116360033
77. Thomas P, Matuschek H, Grima R. Computation of biochemical pathway fluctuations beyond the linear noise approximation using iNA. IEEE International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine; 2012;p. 192–196.
78. Peccoud J, Ycart B, Markovian modelling of gene product synthesis. Theor Popul Biol; 1995;48(2):222–234. doi: 10.1006/tpbi.1995.1027
79. Friedman N, Cai L, Xie XS, Linking stochastic dynamics to population distribution: an analytical framework of gene expression. Phys Rev Lett; 2006;97(16):168302. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.97.16830217155441
80. Shahrezaei V, Swain PS, Analytical distributions for stochastic gene expression. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A; 2008;105(45):17256–17261. doi: 10.1073/pnas.080385010518988743
81. De Vargas Roditi L, Claassen M, Computational and experimental single cell biology techniques for the definition of cell type heterogeneity, interplay and intracellular dynamics. Curr Opin Biotechnol; 2015;34:9–15. doi: 10.1016/j.copbio.2014.10.01025461506
82. Wang Z, Gerstein M, Snyder M, RNA-Seq: a revolutionary tool for transcriptomics. Nat Rev Gen; 2009;10(1):57–63. doi: 10.1038/nrg2484
83. Rimon N, Schuldiner M, Getting the whole picture: combining throughput with content in microscopy. J Cell Sci; 2011;124(22):3743–3751. doi: 10.1242/jcs.08748622124141
84. Bodenmiller B, Zunder ER, Finck R, Chen TJ, Savig ES, Bruggner RV, et al. Multiplexed mass cytometry profiling of cellular states perturbed by small-molecule regulators. Nat Biotechnol; 2012;30(9):858–867. doi: 10.1038/nbt.231722902532
85. Thomas P, Grima R, Approximate distributions of the Master equation. Physical Review E; 2015;92:012120.
86. Hug S, Raue A, Hasenauer J, Bachmann J, Klingmüller U, Timmer J, et al. High-dimensional Bayesian parameter estimation: Case study for a model of JAK2/STAT5 signaling. Math Biosci; 2013;246(2):293–304. doi: 10.1016/j.mbs.2013.04.00223602931
87. Hasenauer J, Löhning M, Khammash M, Allgöwer F, Dynamical optimization using reduced order models: A method to guarantee performance. Journal of Process Control; 2012;22(8):1490–1501. doi: 10.1016/j.jprocont.2012.01.017
88. Dihlmann M, Haasdonk B. Certified nonlinear parameter optimization with reduced basis surrogate models. In: Cvetković L, Atanacković T, Kostić V, editors. Proceedings of Applied Mathematics and Mechanics (PAMM). vol. 13; 2013. p. 3–6.
89. Chkrebtii OA, Probabilistic solution of differential equations for Bayesian uncertainty quantification and inference. Simon Fraser University, Canada; 2013.
90. Chkrebtii OA, Campbell DA, Girolami MA, Calderhead B. Bayesian uncertainty quantification for differential equations. arXiv:13062365 [statME]; 2014;.
91. Hasenauer J, Wolf V, Kazeroonian A, Theis FJ, Method of conditional moments (MCM) for the chemical master equation. Journal of Mathematical Biology; 2014;69(3):687–735.
92. Thomas P, Popovic N, Grima R, Phenotypic switching in gene regulatory networks. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A; 2014;111(19):6994–6999. doi: 10.1073/pnas.140004911124782538
93. Hasenauer J, Hasenauer C, Hucho T, Theis FJ, ODE constrained mixture modelling: A method for unraveling subpopulation structures and dynamics. PLoS Comput Biol; 2014;10(7):e1003686. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.100368624992156
94. Schroeder T, Long-term single-cell imaging of mammalian stem cells. Nat Methods; 2011;8(4):30–35. doi: 10.1038/nmeth.1577
95. Taniguchi K, Kajiyama T, Kambara H, Quantitative analysis of gene expression in a single cell by qPCR. Nature Methods; 2009;6(7):503–506. doi: 10.1038/nmeth.133819525960
96. Pelkmans L, Using cell-to-cell variability–A new era in molecular biology. Science; 2012;336(6080):425–426.
97. Munsky B, Neuert G, von Oudenaarden A, Using gene expression noise to understand gene regulation. Science; 2012;336(6078):183–187. doi: 10.1126/science.121637922499939