Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28768879›Full record

ReviewJournal of the Royal Society, Interface2017

How to deal with parameters for whole-cell modelling.

Ann C Babtie, Michael P H Stumpf

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of the Royal Society, Interface, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

39 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Sensitivity analysis of biochemical systems using bond graphs.Journal of the Royal Society, Interface · 2023
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Multi-scale models of whole cells: progress and challenges.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2023
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Ann C BabtieDepartment of Life Sciences, Imperial College London, London, UK a.babtie@imperial.ac.uk.
Michael P H StumpfDepartment of Life Sciences, Imperial College London, London, UK m.stumpf@imperial.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-3577-1222

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Dynamical systems describing whole cells are on the verge of becoming a reality. But as models of reality, they are only useful if we have realistic parameters for the molecular reaction rates and cell physiological processes. There is currently no suitable framework to reliably estimate hundreds, let alone thousands, of reaction rate parameters. Here, we map out the relative weaknesses and promises of different approaches aimed at redressing this issue. While suitable procedures for estimation or inference of the whole (vast) set of parameters will, in all likelihood, remain elusive, some hope can be drawn from the fact that much of the cellular behaviour may be explained in terms of smaller sets of parameters. Identifying such parameter sets and assessing their behaviour is now becoming possible even for very large systems of equations, and we expect such methods to become central tools in the development and analysis of whole-cell models.

Indexed as

Cell Physiological PhenomenaModels, BiologicalAnimalsHumansmodel selectionparameter estimationstatistical inferencewhole-cell models

Identifiers

PMID28768879
PMCPMC5582120

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.