ArticleBMC systems biology2011
Understanding dynamics using sensitivity analysis: caveat and solution.
Article in BMC systems biology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Feedback Control and Sensitivity Analysis in Synthetic Gene Circuits.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2026Article
- Advances in modeling cellular state dynamics: integrating omics data and predictive techniques.Animal cells and systems · 2025Review
- Index analysis: An approach to understand signal transduction with application to the EGFR signalling pathway.PLoS computational biology · 2024Article
- Network motifs and hypermotifs in TGFβ-induced epithelial to mesenchymal transition and metastasis.Frontiers in systems biology · 2023Article
- Article
- Understanding and reducing complex systems pharmacology models based on a novel input-response index.Journal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics · 2018Article
- Multi-Response Parameter Interval Sensitivity and Optimization for the Composite Tape Winding Process.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2018Article
- Protein abundance of AKT and ERK pathway components governs cell type-specific regulation of proliferation.Molecular systems biology · 2017Article
- A rule-based model of insulin signalling pathway.BMC systems biology · 2016Article
- Are Quasi-Steady-State Approximated Models Suitable for Quantifying Intrinsic Noise Accurately?PloS one · 2015Article
- Computational estimation of tricarboxylic acid cycle fluxes using noisy NMR data from cardiac biopsies.BMC systems biology · 2013Article
- The emerging paradigm of network medicine in the study of human disease.Circulation research · 2012Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundParametric sensitivity analysis (PSA) has become one of the most commonly used tools in computational systems biology, in which the sensitivity coefficients are used to study the parametric dependence of biological models. As many of these models describe dynamical behaviour of biological systems, the PSA has subsequently been used to elucidate important cellular processes that regulate this dynamics. However, in this paper, we show that the PSA coefficients are not suitable in inferring the mechanisms by which dynamical behaviour arises and in fact it can even lead to incorrect conclusions.
resultsA careful interpretation of parametric perturbations used in the PSA is presented here to explain the issue of using this analysis in inferring dynamics. In short, the PSA coefficients quantify the integrated change in the system behaviour due to persistent parametric perturbations, and thus the dynamical information of when a parameter perturbation matters is lost. To get around this issue, we present a new sensitivity analysis based on impulse perturbations on system parameters, which is named impulse parametric sensitivity analysis (iPSA). The inability of PSA and the efficacy of iPSA in revealing mechanistic information of a dynamical system are illustrated using two examples involving switch activation.
conclusionsThe interpretation of the PSA coefficients of dynamical systems should take into account the persistent nature of parametric perturbations involved in the derivation of this analysis. The application of PSA to identify the controlling mechanism of dynamical behaviour can be misleading. By using impulse perturbations, introduced at different times, the iPSA provides the necessary information to understand how dynamics is achieved, i.e. which parameters are essential and when they become important.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.