bioRxiv Science⌕ Search

Biology subjects

Nguyen, T. V. N.

Publications and source records attributed to Nguyen, T. V. N..

5 recordsLinked to original sources

Talk2Biomodels: AI agent-based open-source LLM initiative for kinetic biological models

In this study, we present Talk2Biomodels (T2B), an open-source1, user-friendly, large language model-based agentic AI platform designed to democratize access to computational models of biological interactions and promote the FAIRification (Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability, and Reusability) of these models. T2B enables users to explore and analyse mathematical models of biological systems using natural language. It eschews the traditional graphical user interface (GUI) and minimally adaptable workflow in favour of a modern agentic framework to provide a dynamic and immersive experience to explore mathematical models of biological interactions through conversations in natural language. T2B supports models encoded in the open-source community format Systems Biology Markup Language (SBML) and is integrated with the BioModels database (https://www.ebi.ac.uk/biomodels/), enabling seamless exploration, simulation, and analysis of curated systems biology models. Use cases in precision medicine, epidemiology, and emergent systems properties of biological networks are presented to demonstrate how experts and non-experts in computational biology can benefit from T2B.

systems biology↗

Using SED-ML for reproducible curation: Verifying BioModels across multiple simulation engines

The BioModels Repository contains over 1000 manually curated mechanistic models from published literature, most often encoded in the Systems Biology Markup Language (SBML). This community-based standard formally specifies each model, but does not describe the computational experimental conditions to run a simulation. Therefore, it can be challenging to reproduce any figure or result from a publication with an SBML model alone. The Simulation Experiment Description Markup Language (SED-ML) provides a solution: a standard way to specify exactly how to run an experiment corresponding to a specific figure or result. BioModels was established years before SED-ML, and both systems evolved over time, both in content and acceptance. Hence, only about half of the entries in BioModels contained SED-ML files, and these files reflected the version of SED-ML that was available at the time. Additionally, almost all of these SED-ML files had at least one minor mistake that made them invalid. To make these models and their results more reproducible, we report here on our work updating, correcting and generating new SED-ML files for 1055 curated mechanistic models in BioModels. In addition, because SED-ML is implementation-independent, it can be used for verification, demonstrating that results hold across multiple simulation engines. We tested, corrected, and improved over 450 existing SED-ML files in the BioModels database, and created basic files for the rest of the entries. Then, we used a wrapper architecture for interpreting SED-ML, and report verification results across five different ODE-based biosimulation engines, after further improving the models, the wrappers, and the engines themselves. Our work with SED-ML and the BioModels collection aims to improve the utility of these models by making them more reproducible and credible. Improved reproducibility means these models are now even more fit for re-use, such as in new investigations and as components of multiscale models. Author summaryReproducing computationally-derived scientific results seems like it should be straightforward, but is often elusive. Code is lost, file formats change, and knowledge of what was done is only partially recorded and/or forgotten. Model repositories such as BioModels address this failing in the Systems Biology domain by encoding models in a standard format that can reproduce a figure from the paper from which it was drawn. Here, we delved into the BioModels repository to create and correct the instructions on what to do with every curated model, and then tested those instructions on a variety of simulation platforms, allowing us to find and correct issues with the platforms and the simulators themselves. Not only did this improve the BioModels repository, but also improved the infrastructure necessary to run these verification comparisons in the future, and improved the fitness of the models for re-use by other researchers.

systems biology↗

FROG Analysis Ensures the Reproducibility of Genome Scale Metabolic Models

Genome-scale metabolic models (GEMs) and other constraint-based models (CBMs) play a pivotal role in understanding biological phenotypes and advancing research in areas like metabolic engineering, human disease modelling, drug discovery, and personalized medicine. Despite their growing application, a significant challenge remains in ensuring the reproducibility of GEMs, primarily due to inconsistent reporting and inadequate model documentation of model results. Addressing this gap, we introduce FROG analysis, a community-driven initiative aimed at standardizing reproducibility assessments of CBMs and GEMs. The FROG framework encompasses four key analyses--Flux variability, Reaction deletion, Objective function, and Gene deletion--to produce standardized, numerically reproducible FROG reports. These reports serve as reference datasets, enabling model evaluators, curators, and independent researchers to verify the reproducibility of GEMs systematically. BioModels, a leading repository of systems biology models, has integrated FROG analysis into its curation workflow, enhancing the reproducibility and reusability of submitted GEMs. In our study evaluating 65 GEM submissions from the community, approximately 40% reproduced without intervention, 28% requiring minor adjustments, and 32% needing input from authors. The standardization introduced by FROG analysis facilitated the detection and resolution of issues, ultimately leading to the successful reproduction of all models. By establishing a standardized and comprehensive approach to evaluating GEM reproducibility, FROG analysis significantly contributes to making CBMs and GEMs more transparent, reusable, and reliable for the broader scientific community.

systems biology↗

BioModelsML: Building a FAIR and reproducible collection of machine learning models in life sciences and medicine for easy reuse

Machine learning (ML) models are widely used in life sciences and medicine; however, they are scattered across various platforms and there are several challenges that hinder their accessibility, reproducibility and reuse. In this manuscript, we present the formalisation and pilot implementation of community protocol to enable FAIReR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable, and Reproducible) sharing of ML models. The protocol consists of eight steps, including sharing model training code, dataset information, reproduced figures, model evaluation metrics, trained models, Dockerfiles, model metadata, and FAIR dissemination. Applying these measures we aim to build and share a comprehensive public collection of FAIR ML models in the BioModels repository through incentivized community curation. In a pilot implementation, we curated diverse ML models to demonstrate the feasibility of our approach and we discussed the current challenges. Building a FAIReR collection of ML models will directly enhance the reproducibility and reusability of ML models, minimising the effort needed to reimplement models, maximising the impact on the application and significantly accelerating the advancement in the field of life science and medicine.

bioinformatics↗

Reproducibility in systems biology modelling

The reproducibility crisis has emerged as an important concern across many fields of science including life science, since many published results failed to reproduce. Systems biology modelling, which involves mathematical representation of biological processes to study complex system behaviour, was expected to be least affected by this crisis. While lack of reproducibility of experimental results and computational analysis could be a repercussion of several compounded factors, it was not fully understood why systems biology models with well-defined mathematical expressions fail to reproduce and how prevalent it is. Hence, we systematically attempted to reproduce 455 kinetic models of biological processes published in peer-reviewed research articles from 152 journals; which is collectively a work of about 1400 scientists from 49 countries. Our investigation revealed that about half (49%) of the models could not be reproduced using the information provided in the published manuscripts. With further effort, an additional 12% of the models could be reproduced either by empirical correction or support from authors. The other 37% remained non-reproducible models due to missing parameter values, missing initial concentration, inconsistent model structure, or a combination of these factors. Among the corresponding authors of the non-reproducible model we contacted, less than 30% responded. Our analysis revealed that models published in journals across several fields of life science failed to reproduce, revealing a common problem in the peer-review process. Hence, we propose an 8-point reproducibility scorecard that can be used by authors, reviewers and journal editors to assess each model and address the reproducibility crisis.

systems biology↗