Search

It is often predicted that model-based data analysis will revolutionize biology, just as it has physics and engineering. A widely used tool within such analysis is hypothesis testing, which focuses on model rejections. However, the fact that a systems biology model is non-rejected is often a relatively weak statement, as such models usually are highly over-parametrized with respect to the available data, and both parameters and predictions may therefore be arbitrarily uncertain. For this reason, we formally define and analyse the concept of a core prediction. A core prediction is a uniquely identified property that must be fulfilled if the given model structure is to explain the data, even if the individual parameters are non-uniquely identified. It is shown that such a prediction is as strong a conclusion as a rejection. Furthermore, a new method for core prediction analysis is introduced, which is beneficial for the uncertainty of specific model properties, as the method only characterizes the space of acceptable parameters in the relevant directions. This avoids the curse of dimensionality associated with the generic characterizations used by previously proposed methods. Analysis on examples shows that the new method is comparable to profile likelihood with regard to practical identifiability, and thus generalizes profile likelihood to the more general problem of observability. If used, the concepts and methods presented herein make it possible to distinguish between a conclusion and a mere suggestion, which hopefully will contribute to a more justified confidence in systems biology analyses.

Insulin signaling through insulin receptor (IR) and insulin receptor substrate-1 (IRS1) is important for insulin control of target cells. We have previously demonstrated a rapid and simultaneous ov ...

Systems biology and its usage of mathematical modeling to analyse biological data is rapidly becoming an established approach to biology. A crucial advantage of this approach is that more information can be extracted from observations of intricate dynamics, which allows nontrivial complex explanations to be evaluated and compared. In this minireview we explain this process, and review some of the most central available analysis tools. The focus is on the evaluation and comparison of given explanations for a given set of experimental data and prior knowledge. Three types of methods are discussed: (a) for evaluation of whether a given model is sufficiently able to describe the given data to be nonrejectable; (b) for evaluation of whether a slightly superior model is significantly better; and (c) for a general evaluation and comparison of the biologically interesting features in a model. The most central methods are reviewed, both in terms of underlying assumptions, including references to more advanced literature for the theoretically oriented reader, and in terms of practical guidelines and examples, for the practically oriented reader. Many of the methods are based upon analysis tools from statistics and engineering, and we emphasize that the systems biology focus on acceptable explanations puts these methods in a nonstandard setting. We highlight some associated future improvements that will be essential for future developments of model based data analysis in biology.