4.6 Article

Simplifying biochemical models with intermediate species

期刊

出版社

ROYAL SOC
DOI: 10.1098/rsif.2013.0484

关键词

transient species; stability; multistationarity; model choice; algebraic methods

资金

  1. Lundbeck Foundation
  2. Leverhulme Foundation
  3. Danish Research Council
  4. Generalitat de Catalunya
  5. Spanish Ministerio de Economia y Competitividad [MTM2012-38122-C03-01]
  6. Lundbeck Foundation [R49-2010-5841] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Mathematical models are increasingly being used to understand complex biochemical systems, to analyse experimental data and make predictions about unobserved quantities. However, we rarely know how robust our conclusions are with respect to the choice and uncertainties of the model. Using algebraic techniques, we study systematically the effects of intermediate, or transient, species in biochemical systems and provide a simple, yet rigorous mathematical classification of all models obtained from a core model by including intermediates. Main examples include enzymatic and post-translational modification systems, where intermediates often are considered insignificant and neglected in a model, or they are not included because we are unaware of their existence. All possible models obtained from the core model are classified into a finite number of classes. Each class is defined by a mathematically simple canonical model that characterizes crucial dynamical properties, such as mono-and multistationarity and stability of steady states, of all models in the class. We show that if the core model does not have conservation laws, then the introduction of intermediates does not change the steady-state concentrations of the species in the core model, after suitable matching of parameters. Importantly, our results provide guidelines to the modeller in choosing between models and in distinguishing their properties. Further, our work provides a formal way of comparing models that share a common skeleton.

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