Parameter estimation for gene regulatory networks: A two-stage MCMC Bayesian approach

Author(s):  
Niannan Xue ◽  
Wei Pan ◽  
Yike Guo
2015 ◽  
Vol 77 (8) ◽  
pp. 1457-1492 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kam D. Dahlquist ◽  
Ben G. Fitzpatrick ◽  
Erika T. Camacho ◽  
Stephanie D. Entzminger ◽  
Nathan C. Wanner

2019 ◽  
Vol 16 (153) ◽  
pp. 20180967 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhixing Cao ◽  
Ramon Grima

Bayesian and non-Bayesian moment-based inference methods are commonly used to estimate the parameters defining stochastic models of gene regulatory networks from noisy single cell or population snapshot data. However, a systematic investigation of the accuracy of the predictions of these methods remains missing. Here, we present the results of such a study using synthetic noisy data of a negative auto-regulatory transcriptional feedback loop, one of the most common building blocks of complex gene regulatory networks. We study the error in parameter estimation as a function of (i) number of cells in each sample; (ii) the number of time points; (iii) the highest-order moment of protein fluctuations used for inference; (iv) the moment-closure method used for likelihood approximation. We find that for sample sizes typical of flow cytometry experiments, parameter estimation by maximizing the likelihood is as accurate as using Bayesian methods but with a much reduced computational time. We also show that the choice of moment-closure method is the crucial factor determining the maximum achievable accuracy of moment-based inference methods. Common likelihood approximation methods based on the linear noise approximation or the zero cumulants closure perform poorly for feedback loops with large protein–DNA binding rates or large protein bursts; this is exacerbated for highly heterogeneous cell populations. By contrast, approximating the likelihood using the linear-mapping approximation or conditional derivative matching leads to highly accurate parameter estimates for a wide range of conditions.


PLoS ONE ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 7 (7) ◽  
pp. e40052 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bernhard Steiert ◽  
Andreas Raue ◽  
Jens Timmer ◽  
Clemens Kreutz

Author(s):  
Anthony Almudevar ◽  
Matthew N. McCall ◽  
Helene McMurray ◽  
Hartmut Land

Gene perturbation experiments are commonly used for the reconstruction of gene regulatory networks. Typical experimental methodology imposes persistent changes on the network. The resulting data must therefore be interpreted as a steady state from an altered gene regulatory network, rather than a direct observation of the original network. In this article an implicit modeling methodology is proposed in which the unperturbed network of interest is scored by first modeling the persistent perturbation, then predicting the steady state, which may then be compared to the observed data. This results in a many-to-one inverse problem, so a computational Bayesian approach is used to assess model uncertainty.The methodology is first demonstrated on a number of synthetic networks. It is shown that the Bayesian approach correctly assigns high posterior probability to the network structure and steady state behavior. Further, it is demonstrated that where uncertainty of model features is indicated, the uncertainty may be accurately resolved with further perturbation experiments. The methodology is then applied to the modeling of a gene regulatory network using perturbation data from nine genes which have been shown to respond synergistically to known oncogenic mutations. A hypothetical model emerges which conforms to reported regulatory properties of these genes. Furthermore, the Bayesian methodology is shown to be consistent in the sense that multiple randomized applications of the fitting algorithm converge to an approximately common posterior density on the space of models. Such consistency is generally not feasible for algorithms which report only single models. We conclude that fully Bayesian methods, coupled with models which accurately account for experimental constraints, are a suitable tool for the inference of gene regulatory networks, in terms of accuracy, estimation of model uncertainty, and experimental design.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document