Stochastic simulation algorithms for computational systems biology: Exact, approximate, and hybrid methods

Abstract

Nowadays, mathematical modeling is playing a key role in many different research fields. In the context of system biology, mathematical models and their associated computer simulations constitute essential tools of investigation. Among the others, they provide a way to systematically analyze systems perturbations, develop hypotheses to guide the design of new experimental tests, and ultimately assess the suitability of specific molecules as novel therapeutic targets. To these purposes, stochastic simulation algorithms (SSAs) have been introduced for numerically simulating the time evolution of a well‐stirred chemically reacting system by taking proper account of the randomness inherent in such a system. In this work, we review the main SSAs that have been introduced in the context of exact, approximate, and hybrid stochastic simulation. Specifically, we will introduce the direct method (DM), the first reaction method (FRM), the next reaction method (NRM) and the rejection‐based SSA (RSSA) in the area of exact stochastic simulation. We will then present the τ‐leaping method and the chemical Langevin method in the area of approximate stochastic simulation and an implementation of the hybrid RSSA (HRSSA) in the context of hybrid stochastic‐deterministic simulation. Finally, we will consider the model of the sphingolipid metabolism to provide an example of application of SSA to computational system biology by exemplifying how different simulation strategies may unveil different insights into the investigated biological phenomenon. This article is categorized under: Models of Systems Properties and Processes > Mechanistic Models Analytical and Computational Methods > Computational Methods

History and Future Perspectives on the Discipline of Quantitative Systems Pharmacology Modeling and Its Applications

“…Once a subset of parameters are identified that can be fitted, a number of optimization approaches can be deployed to identify an appropriate fit. In this section, we discuss the importance and need for evolving technology and methodological advances that are necessary to improve on the capability of QSP model optimization to clinical or preclinical data, as well as simulation strategies (Marchetti et al, 2017;Simoni et al, 2019a).…”

Can Systems Biology Advance Clinical Precision Oncology?

“…While analytical solutions can be found only for very simple CMEs, these can be solved by common numerical methods. More frequently, as CMEs represent probability distributions, they are analyzed by the so-called stochastic simulation algorithms (SSAs), such as the Gillespie algorithm and several of its approximations [ 130 , 131 ].…”

A QSP model of prostate cancer immunotherapy to identify effective combination therapies

“…CTLs are described by the Eq. (12). The action of D f cells activates CTLs, as defined by the "activaton by D f " term, and IL-2 promotes their proliferation, as described in the "stimulation by IL-2" term.…”

“…Mathematical modeling has been successfully applied in the context of computational systems biology to develop comprehensive mathematical descriptions of several pathologies [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] . Mathematical models are calibrated through experimental data to simulate in silico biological systems and test hypotheses, for example regarding the regulative mechanisms of complex diseases [10][11][12][13][14][15][16] . Quantitative system pharmacology (QSP) is a popular modeling approach that supports the pharmaceutical industry in validating or identifying drug targets, designing new therapies and evaluating side effects [17][18][19][20][21] .…”