Search

Life science researchers use computational models to articulate and test hypotheses about the behavior of biological systems. Semantic annotation is a critical component for enhancing the interoperability and reusability of such models as well as for the integration of the data needed for model parameterization and validation. Encoded as machine-readable links to knowledge resource terms, semantic annotations describe the computational or biological meaning of what models and data represent. These annotations help researchers find and repurpose models, accelerate model composition and enable knowledge integration across model repositories and experimental data stores. However, realizing the potential benefits of semantic annotation requires the development of model annotation standards that adhere to a community-based annotation protocol. Without such standards, tool developers must account for a variety of annotation formats and approaches, a situation that can become prohibitively cumbersome and which can defeat the purpose of linking model elements to controlled knowledge resource terms. Currently, no consensus protocol for semantic annotation exists among the larger biological modeling community. Here, we report on the landscape of current annotation practices among the COmputational Modeling in BIology NEtwork community and provide a set of recommendations for building a consensus approach to semantic annotation., (© The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Summary: The Simulation Experiment Description Markup Language (SED-ML) is a standardized format for exchanging simulation studies independently of software tools. We present the SED-ML Web Tools, an online application for creating, editing, simulating and validating SED-ML documents. The Web Tools implement all current SED-ML specifications and, thus, support complex modifications and co-simulation of models in SBML and CellML formats. Ultimately, the Web Tools lower the bar on working with SED-ML documents and help users create valid simulation descriptions., Availability and Implementation: http://sysbioapps.dyndns.org/SED-ML_Web_Tools/ ., Contact: fbergman@caltech.edu ., (© The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com)

Objective: Whole-cell (WC) modeling is a promising tool for biological research, bioengineering, and medicine. However, substantial work remains to create accurate comprehensive models of complex cells., Methods: We organized the 2015 Whole-Cell Modeling Summer School to teach WC modeling and evaluate the need for new WC modeling standards and software by recoding a recently published WC model in the Systems Biology Markup Language., Results: Our analysis revealed several challenges to representing WC models using the current standards., Conclusion: We, therefore, propose several new WC modeling standards, software, and databases., Significance: We anticipate that these new standards and software will enable more comprehensive models.

Motivation: Repositories support the reuse of models and ensure transparency about results in publications linked to those models. With thousands of models available in repositories, such as the BioModels database or the Physiome Model Repository, a framework to track the differences between models and their versions is essential to compare and combine models. Difference detection not only allows users to study the history of models but also helps in the detection of errors and inconsistencies. Existing repositories lack algorithms to track a model's development over time., Results: Focusing on SBML and CellML, we present an algorithm to accurately detect and describe differences between coexisting versions of a model with respect to (i) the models' encoding, (ii) the structure of biological networks and (iii) mathematical expressions. This algorithm is implemented in a comprehensive and open source library called BiVeS. BiVeS helps to identify and characterize changes in computational models and thereby contributes to the documentation of a model's history. Our work facilitates the reuse and extension of existing models and supports collaborative modelling. Finally, it contributes to better reproducibility of modelling results and to the challenge of model provenance., Availability and Implementation: The workflow described in this article is implemented in BiVeS. BiVeS is freely available as source code and binary from sems.uni-rostock.de. The web interface BudHat demonstrates the capabilities of BiVeS at budhat.sems.uni-rostock.de., (© The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Computational modeling of cardiac cellular electrophysiology has a long history, and many models are now available for different species, cell types, and experimental preparations. This success brings with it a challenge: how do we assess and compare the underlying hypotheses and emergent behaviors so that we can choose a model as a suitable basis for a new study or to characterize how a particular model behaves in different scenarios? We have created an online resource for the characterization and comparison of electrophysiological cell models in a wide range of experimental scenarios. The details of the mathematical model (quantitative assumptions and hypotheses formulated as ordinary differential equations) are separated from the experimental protocol being simulated. Each model and protocol is then encoded in computer-readable formats. A simulation tool runs virtual experiments on models encoded in CellML, and a website (https://chaste.cs.ox.ac.uk/WebLab) provides a friendly interface, allowing users to store and compare results. The system currently contains a sample of 36 models and 23 protocols, including current-voltage curve generation, action potential properties under steady pacing at different rates, restitution properties, block of particular channels, and hypo-/hyperkalemia. This resource is publicly available, open source, and free, and we invite the community to use it and become involved in future developments. Investigators interested in comparing competing hypotheses using models can make a more informed decision, and those developing new models can upload them for easy evaluation under the existing protocols, and even add their own protocols., (Copyright © 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: With the ever increasing use of computational models in the biosciences, the need to share models and reproduce the results of published studies efficiently and easily is becoming more important. To this end, various standards have been proposed that can be used to describe models, simulations, data or other essential information in a consistent fashion. These constitute various separate components required to reproduce a given published scientific result., Results: We describe the Open Modeling EXchange format (OMEX). Together with the use of other standard formats from the Computational Modeling in Biology Network (COMBINE), OMEX is the basis of the COMBINE Archive, a single file that supports the exchange of all the information necessary for a modeling and simulation experiment in biology. An OMEX file is a ZIP container that includes a manifest file, listing the content of the archive, an optional metadata file adding information about the archive and its content, and the files describing the model. The content of a COMBINE Archive consists of files encoded in COMBINE standards whenever possible, but may include additional files defined by an Internet Media Type. Several tools that support the COMBINE Archive are available, either as independent libraries or embedded in modeling software., Conclusions: The COMBINE Archive facilitates the reproduction of modeling and simulation experiments in biology by embedding all the relevant information in one file. Having all the information stored and exchanged at once also helps in building activity logs and audit trails. We anticipate that the COMBINE Archive will become a significant help for modellers, as the domain moves to larger, more complex experiments such as multi-scale models of organs, digital organisms, and bioengineering.

Motivation: Only models that are accessible to researchers can be reused. As computational models evolve over time, a number of different but related versions of a model exist. Consequently, tools are required to manage not only well-curated models but also their associated versions., Results: In this work, we discuss conceptual requirements for model version control. Focusing on XML formats such as Systems Biology Markup Language and CellML, we present methods for the identification and explanation of differences and for the justification of changes between model versions. In consequence, researchers can reflect on these changes, which in turn have considerable value for the development of new models. The implementation of model version control will therefore foster the exploration of published models and increase their reusability.