Advertisement

Biology & Philosophy

, Volume 31, Issue 3, pp 353–372 | Cite as

Heuristic approaches to models and modeling in systems biology

  • Miles MacLeod
Article

Abstract

Prediction and control sufficient for reliable medical and other interventions are prominent aims of modeling in systems biology. The short-term attainment of these goals has played a strong role in projecting the importance and value of the field. In this paper I identify the standard models must meet to achieve these objectives as predictive robustness—predictive reliability over large domains. Drawing on the results of an ethnographic investigation and various studies in the systems biology literature, I explore four current obstacles to achieving predictive robustness; data constraints, parameter uncertainty, collaborative constraints and system-scale requirements. I use a case study and the commentary of systems biologists themselves to show that current practices in the field, rather than pursuing these goals, frequently use models heuristically to investigate and build understanding of biological systems that do not meet standards of predictive robustness but are nonetheless effective uses of computation. A more heuristic conception of modeling allows us to interpret current practices as ways that manage these obstacles more effectively, particularly collaborative constraints, such that modelers can in the long-run at least work towards prediction and control.

Keywords

Systems biology Prediction Control Heuristic Collaboration Parameters Mesoscopic modeling 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by a postdoctoral fellowship at the Academy Centre of Finland Excellence in the Philosophy of the Social Sciences, University of Helsinki. The ethnographic project was funded by the National Science Foundation (DRL097394084). I would like to thank the directors of Lab C and Lab G for welcoming us into the lab and the lab-members of those labs for granting us numerous interviews. I would like to thank in particular Nancy Nersessian for contributing many important insights involved in the development of this paper, as well as other members of our research group Vrishali Subramanhian, Lisa Osbeck, Sanjay Chandrasekharan, and Wendy Newstetter for their own useful insights. I would also like to thank Chiara Lisciandra for her thorough and helpful comments on an earlier version of this paper and two reviewers for their excellent advice on how to improve the paper.

References

  1. Apgar JF, Witmer DK, White FM, Tidor B (2010) Sloppy models, parameter uncertainty, and the role of experimental design. Mol BioSyst 6(10):1890–1900CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bandara S, Schlöder JP, Eils R, Bock HG, Meyer T (2009) Optimal experimental design for parameter estimation of a cell signaling model. PLoS Comput Biol 5(11):e1000558CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bechtel William, Abrahamsen Adele (2005) Explanation: a mechanist alternative. Stud Hist Philos Sci C: Stud Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sci 36(2):421–441Google Scholar
  4. Bechtel William, Abrahamsen Adele (2010) Dynamic mechanistic explanation: computational modeling of circadian rhythms as an exemplar for cognitive science. Stud Hist Philos Sci A 41(3):321–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bertolaso M, Giuliani A, Filippi S (2014) The mesoscopic level and its epistemological relevance in systems biology. In: Andre VXCN, Sarkar A, Gao Y (eds) Recent advances in systems biological research. Nova Science Publishers, Hauppauge, pp 19–36Google Scholar
  6. Butcher EC, Berg EL, Kunkel EJ (2004) Systems biology in drug discovery. Nat Biotechnol 22(10):1253–1259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Calvert J, Fujimura JH (2011) Calculating life? Duelling discourses in interdisciplinary systems biology. Stud Hist Philos Sci C: Stud Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sci 42(2):155–163Google Scholar
  8. Cassman M, Arkin A, Katagiri F, Lauffenburger D, Doyle FJ, Stokes CL (2005) Barriers to progress in systems biology. Nature 438:1079CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chen J, Dougherty E, Demir SS, Friedman C, Li CS, Wong S (2005) Grand challenges for multimodal bio-medical systems. Circuits Syst Mag IEEE 5(2):46–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cornish-Bowden A (2005) Making systems biology work in the 21st century. Genome Biol 6(4):317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Giuliani A, Filippi S, Bertolaso M (2014) Why network approach can promote a new way of thinking in biology. Front Genet. doi: 10.3389/fgene.2014.00083 Google Scholar
  12. Green S (2013) When one model is not enough: combining epistemic tools in systems biology. Stud Hist Philos Sci C: Stud Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sci 44(2):170–180Google Scholar
  13. Gutenkunst RN, Waterfall JJ, Casey FP, Brown KS, Myers CR, Sethna JP (2007) Universally sloppy parameter sensitivities in systems biology models. PLoS Comput Biol 3(10):e189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hood L, Heath JR, Phelps ME, Lin B (2004) Systems biology and new technologies enable predictive and preventative medicine. Science 306(5696):640–643CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kitano H (2002) Looking beyond the details: a rise in system-oriented approaches in genetics and molecular biology. Curr Genet 41(1):1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Knuuttila T (2011) Modelling and representing: an artefactual approach to model-based representation. Stud Hist Philos Sci A 42(2):262–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kreutz C, Timmer J (2009) Systems biology: experimental design. FEBS J 276(4):923–942CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Krohs U, Callebaut W (2007) Data without models merging with models without data. In: Boogerd Fred, Bruggeman Frank J, Hofmeyer Jan-Hendrik S, Westerhoff Hans V (eds) Systems biology: philosophical foundations. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 181–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kuepfer L, Peter M, Sauer U, Stelling J (2007) Ensemble modeling for analysis of cell signaling dynamics. Nat Biotechnol 25(9):1001–1006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Liu ET (2005) Systems biology, integrative biology, predictive biology. Cell 121(4):505–506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. MacLeod M (2015) Managing complexity: model-building in systems biology and its challenges for philosophy of science. In: Bertalaso M (ed) The future of scientific practice: bio-techno-logos. Pickering & Chatto, London, pp 83–102Google Scholar
  22. MacLeod M, Nersessian NJ (2013a) Building simulations from the ground-up: modeling and theory in systems biology. Philos Sci 80(4):533–556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. MacLeod M, Nersessian NJ (2013b) Coupling simulation and experiment: the bimodal strategy in integrative systems biology. Stud Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sci 44:572–584CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. MacLeod M, Nersessian NJ (2013c) The creative industry of systems biology. Mind Soc 12:35–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. MacLeod M, Nersessian NJ (2014) Strategies for coordinating experimentation and modeling in integrative systems biology. J Exp Zool (Mol Dev Evol) 9999:1–10Google Scholar
  26. MacLeod M, Nersessian NJ (2015) Modeling systems-level dynamics: understanding without mechanistic explanation in integrative systems biology studies in history and philosophy of science Part C—biological and biomedical. Science 49:1–11Google Scholar
  27. Marder E, Taylor AL (2011) Multiple models to capture the variability in biological neurons and networks. Nat Neurosci 14(2):133–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mustacchi R, Hohmann S, Nielsen J (2006) Yeast systems biology to unravel the network of life. Yeast 23:227–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Noble D (2008) The music of life: biology beyond genes. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  30. O’Malley MA, Dupré J (2005) Fundamental issues in systems biology. BioEssays 27(12):1270–1276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. O’Malley MA, Calvert J, Dupré J (2007) The study of socioethical issues in systems biology. Am J Bioeth 7(4):67–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Tran LM, Rizk ML, Liao JC (2008) Ensemble modeling of metabolic networks. Biophys J 95(12):5606–5617CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Voit EO (2000) Computational analysis of biochemical systems: a practical guide for biochemists and molecular biologists. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  34. Voit EO (2014) Mesoscopic modeling as a starting point for computational analyses of cystic fibrosis as a systemic disease. Biochim Biophys Acta 1844(1):258–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Voit EO, Qi Z, Kikuchi S (2012) Mesoscopic models of neurotransmission as intermediates between disease simulators and tools for discovering design principles. Pharmacopsychiatry 45(1):22Google Scholar
  36. Wahl SA, Haunschild MD, Oldiges M, Wiechert W (2006) Unravelling the regulatory structure of biochemical networks using stimulus response experiments and large-scale model selection. IEE Proc Syst Biol 153(4):275–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Weisberg M (2006) Robustness analysis. Philos Sci 73(5):730–742CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Westerhoff HV, Kell DB (2007) The methodologies of systems biology. In: Boogerd Fred, Bruggeman Frank J, Hofmeyer Jan-Hendrik S, Westerhoff Hans V (eds) Systems biology: philosophical foundations. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 23–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wimsatt WC (2007) Re-engineering philosophy for limited beings: piecewise approximations to reality. Harvard University Press, BostonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.TINT Centre of Excellence for the Philosophy of the Social SciencesUniversity of HelsinkiHelsinkiFinland

Personalised recommendations