Inferring Broad Regulatory Biology from Time Course Data: Have We Reached an Upper Bound under Constraints Typical of In Vivo Studies?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is a growing appreciation for the network biology that regulates the coordinated expression of molecular and cellular markers however questions persist regarding the identifiability of these networks. Here we explore some of the issues relevant to recovering directed regulatory networks from time course data collected under experimental constraints typical of in vivo studies. NetSim simulations of sparsely connected biological networks were used to evaluate two simple feature selection techniques used in the construction of linear Ordinary Differential Equation (ODE) models, namely truncation of terms versus latent vector projection. Performance was compared with ODE-based Time Series Network Identification (TSNI) integral, and the information-theoretic Time-Delay ARACNE (TD-ARACNE). Projection-based techniques and TSNI integral outperformed truncation-based selection and TD-ARACNE on aggregate networks with edge densities of 10-30%, i.e. transcription factor, protein-protein cliques and immune signaling networks. All were more robust to noise than truncation-based feature selection. Performance was comparable on the in silico 10-node DREAM 3 network, a 5-node Yeast synthetic network designed for In vivo Reverse-engineering and Modeling Assessment (IRMA) and a 9-node human HeLa cell cycle network of similar size and edge density. Performance was more sensitive to the number of time courses than to sample frequency and extrapolated better to larger networks by grouping experiments. In all cases performance declined rapidly in larger networks with lower edge density. Limited recovery and high false positive rates obtained overall bring into question our ability to generate informative time course data rather than the design of any particular reverse engineering algorithm.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".