Aimin Chen
ABSTRACT
Nonlinear mixed-effect model is a powerful tool to analyze complex data that have both within-subject and between-subject variabilities. Although a variety of studies have been conducted to infer parameter distributions under the assumption of parameter independence, it is not clear what are the influence of parameter correlation on the system dynamics. In this work we provide computer simulations of nonlinear mixed-effect model with ordinary differential equations. Using a gene network model as the test problem, we examine the influence of parameter correlation on the system dynamics of nonlinear mixed-effect model with normal or nonnormal random effects. Computer simulations show that the increase of positive correlation will elevate the difference between simulations with and without parameter correlation for both normal and gamma random effects. In addition, the increase of negative correlation will enhance the difference between simulations with and without parameter correlation for gamma random effects. However, the increase of negative correlation will decrease the difference between simulations with and without parameter correlation for the normal random effects. Simulation results will provide insights for the inference of parameter distributions under the assumption of parameter correlation.
- Jeffrey A Farrell, Yiqun Wang, Samantha J. Riesenfeld, Karthik Shekhar, Aviv Regev, and Alexander F. Schier. 2018. Single-cell reconstruction of developmental trajectories during zebrafish embryogenesis. Science 360(6392): eaar3131. DOI: 10.1126/science.aar3131Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Jun Ding, Nadav Sharon, and Ziv Bar-Joseph. 2022. Temporal modelling using single-cell transcriptomics. Nature Reviews Genetics 23(6): 355-368. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41576-021-00444-7Google ScholarCross Ref
- Andrew E Teschendorff, and Andrew P. Feinberg. 2021. Statistical mechanics meets single-cell biology. Nature Reviews Genetics 22(7): 459-476. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41576-021-00341-zGoogle ScholarCross Ref
- David Lähnemann, Johannes Köster, Ewa Szczurek, Davis J. McCarthy, Stephanie C. Hicks, Mark D. Robinson, Catalina A. Vallejos 2020. Eleven grand challenges in single-cell data science. Genome biology 21(1): 1-35. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13059-020-1926-6.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Aimin Chen, Tianshou Zhou, and Tianhai Tian. 2022. Integrated Pipelines for Inferring Gene Regulatory Networks from Single-Cell Data. Current Bioinformatics 17(7): 559-564. https://doi.org/10.2174/1574893617666220511234247Google ScholarCross Ref
- Mary J. Lindstrom, and Douglas M. Bates. 1990. Nonlinear mixed effects models for repeated measures data. Biometrics 46(3): 673-687. https://doi.org/10.2307/2532087Google ScholarCross Ref
- Marie Davidian, and David M. Giltinan. 2003. Nonlinear models for repeated measurement data: an overview and update. Journal of agricultural, biological, and environmental statistics. 8: 387-419. https://doi.org/10.1198/1085711032697.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Se Yoon Lee. 2022. Bayesian Nonlinear Models for Repeated Measurement Data: An Overview, Implementation, and Applications." Mathematics 10(6): 898. https://doi.org/10.3390/math10060898Google ScholarCross Ref
- John C Boik, Robert A. Newman, and Robert J. Boik. 2008. Quantifying synergism/antagonism using nonlinear mixed‐effects modeling: A simulation study. Statistics in medicine. 27(7): 1040-1061.Google Scholar
- James T. Thorson, and Coilin Minto. 2015. Mixed effects: a unifying framework for statistical modelling in fisheries biology." ICES Journal of Marine Science 72(5): 1245-1256. https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsu213Google ScholarCross Ref
- Martin Berglund, Mikael Sunnåker, Martin Adiels, Mats Jirstrand, and Bernt Wennberg. 2012. Investigations of a compartmental model for leucine kinetics using non-linear mixed effects models with ordinary and stochastic differential equations. Mathematical medicine and biology: a journal of the IMA. 29(4): 361-384. https://doi.org/10.1093/imammb/dqr021Google ScholarCross Ref
- Reza Drikvandi. 2017. Nonlinear mixed-effects models for pharmacokinetic data analysis: assessment of the random-effects distribution. Journal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics 44(3): 223-232. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10928-017-9510-8Google ScholarCross Ref
- Robert J Bauer. 2019. NONMEM tutorial part I: description of commands and options, with simple examples of population analysis. CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology 8(8): 525-537.Google Scholar
- Markus Karlsson, David LI Janzén, Lucia Durrieu, Alejandro Colman-Lerner, Maria C. Kjellsson, and Gunnar Cedersund. 2015. Nonlinear mixed-effects modelling for single cell estimation: when, why, and how to use it. BMC systems biology 9, no. 1 (2015): 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12918-015-0203-xGoogle ScholarCross Ref
- Sebastian Persson, Niek Welkenhuysen, Sviatlana Shashkova, Samuel Wiqvist, Patrick Reith, Gregor W. Schmidt, Umberto Picchini, and Marija Cvijovic. 2022. Scalable and flexible inference framework for stochastic dynamic single-cell models. PLoS Computational Biology 18(5): e1010082. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1010082Google ScholarCross Ref
- Estelle Kuhn, and Marc Lavielle. 2005. Maximum likelihood estimation in nonlinear mixed effects models. Computational statistics & data analysis 49(4): 1020-1038. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csda.2004.07.002.Google ScholarDigital Library
- José Clelto Barros Gomes, Reiko Aoki, Victor Hugo Lachos, Gilberto Alvarenga Paula, and Cibele Maria Russo. 2022. Fast inference for robust nonlinear mixed-effects models." Journal of Applied Statistics. 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1080/02664763.2022.2034141.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Victor H Lachos, Luis M. Castro, and Dipak K. Dey. 2013. Bayesian inference in nonlinear mixed-effects models using normal independent distributions." Computational Statistics & Data Analysis 64: 237-252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csda.2013.02.011.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Dipak K Dey, Ming-Hui Chen, and Hong Chang. 1997. Bayesian approach for nonlinear random effects models." Biometrics: . 53(4): 1239-1252. https://doi.org/10.2307/2533493Google ScholarCross Ref
- Umberto Picchini. 2014. Inference for SDE models via approximate Bayesian computation. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics. 23(4): 1080-1100. https://doi.org/10.1080/10618600.2013.866048Google ScholarCross Ref
- Thomas Krumpolc, D. W. Trahan, D. A. Hickman, and L. T. Biegler. 2022. Kinetic parameter estimation with nonlinear mixed-effects models." Chemical Engineering Journal. 444: 136319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2022.136319Google ScholarCross Ref
- Kerrie P Nelson, Stuart R. Lipsitz, Garrett M. Fitzmaurice, Joseph Ibrahim, Michael Parzen, and Robert Strawderman. 2006. Use of the probability integral transformation to fit nonlinear mixed-effects models with nonnormal random effects." Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics. 15(1): 39-57. https://doi.org/10.1198/106186006X96854Google ScholarCross Ref
- Hao Chen, Lanshan Han, and Alvin Lim. 2022. Estimating linear mixed effects models with truncated normally distributed random effects." Communications in Statistics-Simulation and Computation. 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1080/03610918.2022.2066696Google ScholarCross Ref
- Fernanda L Schumacher, Dipak K. Dey, and Victor H. Lachos. 2021. Approximate inferences for nonlinear mixed effects models with scale mixtures of skew-normal distributions." Journal of Statistical Theory and Practice 15(3): 60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42519-021-00172-5Google ScholarCross Ref
- Weng, Lee, Hongyue Dai, Yihui Zhan, Yudong He, Sergey B. Stepaniants, and Douglas E. Bassett. "Rosetta error model for gene expression analysis." Bioinformatics 22, no. 9 (2006): 1111-1121. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btl045Google ScholarCross Ref
- Richard R Stein, Debora S. Marks, and Chris Sander. 2015. Inferring pairwise interactions from biological data using maximum-entropy probability models." PLoS computational biology. 11(7): e1004182. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004182Google ScholarCross Ref
- Zhimin Deng, Xinan Zhang, and Tianhai Tian. 2018. Inference of model parameters using particle filter algorithm and Copula distributions. IEEE/ACM transactions on computational biology and bioinformatics 17(4): 1231-1240. https://doi.org/10.1109/TCBB.2018.2880974Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- Computer Simulation of Nonlinear Mixed-Effect Models with Ordinary Differential Equations for Genetic Regulation
Recommendations
Linearization techniques for singular initial-value problems of ordinary differential equations
Linearization methods for singular initial-value problems in second-order ordinary differential equations are presented. These methods result in linear constant-coefficients ordinary differential equations which can be integrated analytically, thus ...
Third-order ordinary differential equations equivalent to linear second-order ordinary differential equations via tangent transformations
The linearization problem of a third-order ordinary differential equation by the tangent transformation is considered in the present paper. This is the first application of tangent (essentially) transformations to the linearization problem of third-...
Analysis of Type-II progressively hybrid censored data
The mixture of Type-I and Type-II censoring schemes, called the hybrid censoring scheme, is quite common in life-testing or reliability experiments. Recently, Type-II progressive censoring scheme has become quite popular for analyzing highly reliable ...
Comments