4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Causal network inference using biochemical kinetics

期刊

BIOINFORMATICS
卷 30, 期 17, 页码 I468-I474

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btu452

关键词

-

资金

  1. US Department of Energy [DE-AC02-05CH11231]
  2. US National Institute of Health, National Cancer Institute [U54 CA 112970, P50 CA 58207]
  3. UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [EP/E501311/1]
  4. Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research [Cancer Systems Biology Center]
  5. MRC [MC_UP_1302/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  6. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [EP/D002060/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  7. Medical Research Council [MC_UP_1302/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Motivation: Networks are widely used as structural summaries of biochemical systems. Statistical estimation of networks is usually based on linear or discrete models. However, the dynamics of biochemical systems are generally non-linear, suggesting that suitable non-linear formulations may offer gains with respect to causal network inference and aid in associated prediction problems. Results: We present a general framework for network inference and dynamical prediction using time course data that is rooted in nonlinear biochemical kinetics. This is achieved by considering a dynamical system based on a chemical reaction graph with associated kinetic parameters. Both the graph and kinetic parameters are treated as unknown; inference is carried out within a Bayesian framework. This allows prediction of dynamical behavior even when the underlying reaction graph itself is unknown or uncertain. Results, based on (i) data simulated from a mechanistic model of mitogen-activated protein kinase signaling and (ii) phosphoproteomic data from cancer cell lines, demonstrate that non-linear formulations can yield gains in causal network inference and permit dynamical prediction and uncertainty quantification in the challenging setting where the reaction graph is unknown.

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