Biologically informed NeuralODEs for genome-wide regulatory dynamics

Background:

Modelling Gene Regulatory Networks (GRNs)

A gene regulatory network (GRN) is a conceptual model that explains how genes and their regulatory elements (e.g. transcription factors) interact within a cell (Karlebach & Shamir, 2008). These directional interactions between genes and their products can be modelled as a system of coupled ordinary differential equations (ODEs) with activations or repressions represented as positive or negative terms. As the ODE model describes how the concentrations of each component change over time, it can help to causally explain temporal gene expression patterns.

ODE models are constructed based on existing knowledge of the network structure and kinetic parameters, which can be derived from literature or experimental data. Unknown parameters can be iteratively estimated by minimising the difference between predicted values and the true values of the training dataset. The function that is used to compute this difference/error is called loss function or cost function. After validating the model with independent data, ODE models can predict and study GRN behaviour under various conditions, such as environmental changes or gene mutations. The model can therefore be solved numerically using inter alia the Runge-Kutta or Euler’s methods (for visualisations check out the blog entry by Harold Serrano) to simulate GRN dynamics (Griffiths & Higham, 2010). In short, the Runge-Kutta method estimates the value of y for a given x by computing slopes at individual points and taking the weighted averages of them thereby approximating first-order ordinary differential equations.

Neural Ordinary Differential Equations (NeuralODE)

Neural Ordinary Differential Equations are a type of neural network architecture that directly model the continuous evolution of a system using ordinary differential equations (Chen et al., 2018). The input to the model is a set of initial conditions and an ODE-based function that describes the change in the system over time as a continuous trajectory. The neural network is then trained to learn the parameters of the ODE function that best fit the training data. Neural ODEs have shown promising results in a variety of applications, including image classification (Paoletti et al., 2020), time-series prediction (Jin et al., 2022), and physical simulations (Lanzieri et al., 2022; Kong et al., 2022; Lai et al., 2022).

For readers interested in the topic, I can warmly recommend to read the more detailed introduction to (neural) ODEs by Jonty Sinai, which can be found at https://jontysinai.github.io/jekyll/update/2019/01/18/understanding-neural-odes.html. An overview of different ML methods to infer gene regulatory networks can be found in Table 1 of the featured preprint.

Fig. 1 PHOENIX Neural ODE framework. Figure taken from Hossain et al. (2023), BioRxiv published under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license.

Out-of-the-box models (OOTB models)

Out-of-the-box or pre-trained NLP models are machine learning models that are trained on general purpose data sources. Even though they tend not to be tailored to specific questions/applications, they are popular for pioneering and benchmarking routines as they can be used immediately without time-/resource-expensive customization or training on specific datasets.

Key Findings

The authors developed their ML-framework PHOENIX (Prior-informed Hill-like ODEs to Enhance Neuralnet Integrals with eXplainability) to overcome pitfalls of previously published methods and obtain biologically more meaningful results (GitHub). To better represent the non-linear activation or inhibition of biological processes, the authors incorporated sigmoid Hill-Langmuir-like kinetics (Frank, 2013), which are commonly used when modelling pharmacological reactions, signal transduction and gene expression processes. The Hill-Langmuir equation accounts for saturation effects and cooperative processes such as transcription factors being able to bind to DNA molecules via multiple binding sites thereby increasing the gene expression rate (Chu et al., 2009). Moreover, Hill-like kinetics have been shown to better resemble noise filter-induced bimodality (Ochab-Marcinek et al., 2017), which cannot be resolved using linear dynamics.

Secondly, the PHOENIX ML-framework allows users to integrate prior domain knowledge models to leverage prior expert domain knowledge and create explainable model representations in sparse and noisy settings.

Dynamics from noisy simulated GRN

Hossain and colleagues tested PHOENIX on  simulated gene expression data from two in silico systems using 150 trajectories (140 training / 10 testing) with varying noise levels. When compared to the ground truth (i.e. the original non-noisy data), PHOENIX was found to perform better than out-of-the-box models and previously published methods across different noise levels. PHOENIX successfully recovered the true, i.e. unnoisy gene expression patterns over time despite very noisy training trajectories and prior knowledge models. While prior-less PHOENIX demonstrated the highest predictability overall, adding a user-supplied prior knowledge model resulted in a better explainability.

Recovery of sparse causal biology

Next, the authors quantified the effect of misspecified prior knowledge models on the PHOENIX prediction to assess whether the model can learn causal elements in the system beyond the ones given in the prior knowledge model. They determined that PHOENIX is able to infer regulatory interactions from just the data itself and – if needed – can also deviate from the prior knowledge.

Oscillating yeast cell cycle dynamics

To assess how their framework performs on real biological data, the authors applied PHOENIX to time-resolved expression values of synchronised yeast cells during the cell cycle. Even though the authors had two experimental replicates, they decided against using one for training and one for validation as the high similarity between the replicates would have yielded artificially good results. Hence the data was split into transition pairs, i.e. always taking expression vectors from two consecutive time points with a 86%/7%/7% split (training, validation, testing). When comparing the prediction results to ChIP-chip transcription factor (TF) binding data, it seemed like the model had not only learned to explain temporal patterns in expression, but could also accurately predict TF binding. Moreover, the model predicted the continued periodic oscillations of the cell cycle, even though there were only two cycles present in the data and the ML framework was based on Hill-like kinetics. Hence, this result demonstrates that while predicting the dynamics accurately, the model is flexible enough to deviate from its kinetic framework and the prior knowledge model.

Fig. 2 PHOENIX prediction of yeast cell-cycle dynamics. Figure taken from Hossain et al. (2023), BioRxiv published under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license.

Large-scale breast cancer dynamcis

Most computational approaches to infer gene regulatory networks are not scalable to human-genome scale networks (> 25,000 genes). To assess whether PHOENIX is extendable to large-scale human expression data, publicly available microarray expression values for 22,000 genes from 198 breast cancer patients were obtained and ordered in pseudotime. After excluding genes with no measurable expression, the data was split 90%/5%/5% into training, validation and testing data. PHOENIX predictions were found to be in agreement with a validation network of experimental ChIP-chip binding information, even when including all genes with measurable expression. Next, they  perturbed the initial expression of each gene in silico and studied the effect on the predicted expressions of all other genes.  Perturbations of (cancer-relevant)  transcription factor genes and known cancer drivers were found to have the largest effects on overall gene expression, which is in line with prior literature knowledge. To test whether the full gene set is required for obtaining biological interpretable results, the authors reduced the number of included genes considerably. This resulted in a loss of mechanistic explainability of the resulting regulatory model as well as failing to identify previously found cancer-relevant pathways in a pathway-based functional enrichment analysis. Therefore, the authors concluded that there is a need and benefit for genome-scale predictors and that reducing the complexity of a predictor comes at the cost of explainability.

Conclusion and Perspective

While ODE’s have a long history in applied and pure mathematics, it is fascinating to see the transition to high-dimensional machine-learning algorithms with millions of parameters solving applied mathematical problems. Neural ODEs slowly close the gap between traditional mechanism-driven mathematical modelling and more data-driven ML-approaches. Given the enormous flexibility of neural networks as well as the development of even more sophisticated and highly optimised computing frameworks, it will be interesting to see which applied mathematical problems we might be able to solve in the next decade. Still, traditional approaches will remain indispensable for biological mathematical modelling.

I decided to feature this preprint from Intekhab Hossain and colleagues after his fantastic talk (link to recording) and poster presentation at the 15th RECOMB Satellite Workshop on Computational Cancer Biology in Istanbul earlier this year. Besides it being potentially very useful for my current PhD project, PHOENIX stood out to me as it allows the flexible integration of prior expert knowledge and is data-driven while at the same still mechanism-driven. Taken together, the ML-framework seems to be quite easily adaptable for a wide range of applications. Even though many researchers are pushing for interpretable models, a lot of researchers try to explain their black box models rather than developing explainable models from the beginning (see Rudin, 2019). Hence, I really like the approach chosen by Intekhab Hossain and colleagues.

Further Material

RECOMB-CCB 2023 talk

GitHub Repository

Tags/Keywords

Ordinary Differential Equation (ODE), Gene-Regulatory Network (GRN), Neural Network, Mathematical Modelling, Machine Learning

References

Chen, R. T. Q., Rubanova, Y., Bettencourt, J., & Duvenaud, D. (2018). Neural Ordinary Differential Equations (Version 5). arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.1806.07366

Chu, D., Zabet, N. R., & Mitavskiy, B. (2009). Models of transcription factor binding: Sensitivity of activation functions to model assumptions. Journal of Theoretical Biology (Vol. 257, Issue 3, pp. 419–429). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtbi.2008.11.026

Frank, S. A. (2013). Input-output relations in biological systems: measurement, information and the Hill equation. Biology Direct (Vol. 8, Issue 1). https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6150-8-31

Griffiths, D. F., & Higham, D. J. (2010). Numerical methods for ordinary differential equations (2010th ed.). Guildford, England: Springer.

Jin, M., Zheng, Y., Li, Y.-F., Chen, S., Yang, B., & Pan, S. (2022). Multivariate Time Series Forecasting with Dynamic Graph Neural ODEs. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering (pp. 1–14). Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). https://doi.org/10.1109/tkde.2022.3221989

Karlebach, G., Shamir, R. (2008) Modelling and analysis of gene regulatory networks. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 9, 770–780. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrm2503

Kong, X., Yamashita, K., Foggo, B., & Yu, N. (2022). Dynamic Parameter Estimation with Physics-based Neural Ordinary Differential Equations. 2022 IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting (PESGM). https://doi.org/10.1109/pesgm48719.2022.9916840

Lai, Z., Liu, W., Jian, X., Bacsa, K., Sun, L., & Chatzi, E. (2022). Neural modal ordinary differential equations: Integrating physics-based modeling with neural ordinary differential equations for modeling high-dimensional monitored structures. Data-Centric Engineering, 3, E34. https://doi.org/10.1017/dce.2022.35

Lanzieri, D., Lanusse, F., & Starck, J.-L. (2022). Hybrid Physical-Neural ODEs for Fast N-body Simulations (Version 2). arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2207.05509

Ochab-Marcinek, A., Jędrak, J., & Tabaka, M. (2017). Hill kinetics as a noise filter: the role of transcription factor autoregulation in gene cascades. Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics (Vol. 19, Issue 33, pp. 22580–22591).https://doi.org/10.1039/c7cp00743d

Paoletti, M. E., Haut, J. M., Plaza, J., & Plaza, A. (2020). Neural Ordinary Differential Equations for Hyperspectral Image Classification. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing (Vol. 58, Issue 3, pp. 1718–1734). Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). https://doi.org/10.1109/tgrs.2019.2948031

Rudin, C. (2019) Stop explaining black box machine learning models for high stakes decisions and use interpretable models instead. Nat Mach Intell 1, 206–215. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-019-0048-x

Tags: gene regulatory network, neural network, ode-modelling

Posted on: 31 May 2023 , updated on: 21 August 2023

doi: https://doi.org/10.1242/prelights.34751

Read preprint (No Ratings Yet)