Cargando…

Computational disease modeling – fact or fiction?

BACKGROUND: Biomedical research is changing due to the rapid accumulation of experimental data at an unprecedented scale, revealing increasing degrees of complexity of biological processes. Life Sciences are facing a transition from a descriptive to a mechanistic approach that reveals principles of...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Tegnér, Jesper N, Compte, Albert, Auffray, Charles, An, Gary, Cedersund, Gunnar, Clermont, Gilles, Gutkin, Boris, Oltvai, Zoltán N, Stephan, Klaas Enno, Thomas, Randy, Villoslada, Pablo
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2009
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2697138/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19497118
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1752-0509-3-56
_version_ 1782168289681604608
author Tegnér, Jesper N
Compte, Albert
Auffray, Charles
An, Gary
Cedersund, Gunnar
Clermont, Gilles
Gutkin, Boris
Oltvai, Zoltán N
Stephan, Klaas Enno
Thomas, Randy
Villoslada, Pablo
author_facet Tegnér, Jesper N
Compte, Albert
Auffray, Charles
An, Gary
Cedersund, Gunnar
Clermont, Gilles
Gutkin, Boris
Oltvai, Zoltán N
Stephan, Klaas Enno
Thomas, Randy
Villoslada, Pablo
author_sort Tegnér, Jesper N
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Biomedical research is changing due to the rapid accumulation of experimental data at an unprecedented scale, revealing increasing degrees of complexity of biological processes. Life Sciences are facing a transition from a descriptive to a mechanistic approach that reveals principles of cells, cellular networks, organs, and their interactions across several spatial and temporal scales. There are two conceptual traditions in biological computational-modeling. The bottom-up approach emphasizes complex intracellular molecular models and is well represented within the systems biology community. On the other hand, the physics-inspired top-down modeling strategy identifies and selects features of (presumably) essential relevance to the phenomena of interest and combines available data in models of modest complexity. RESULTS: The workshop, "ESF Exploratory Workshop on Computational disease Modeling", examined the challenges that computational modeling faces in contributing to the understanding and treatment of complex multi-factorial diseases. Participants at the meeting agreed on two general conclusions. First, we identified the critical importance of developing analytical tools for dealing with model and parameter uncertainty. Second, the development of predictive hierarchical models spanning several scales beyond intracellular molecular networks was identified as a major objective. This contrasts with the current focus within the systems biology community on complex molecular modeling. CONCLUSION: During the workshop it became obvious that diverse scientific modeling cultures (from computational neuroscience, theory, data-driven machine-learning approaches, agent-based modeling, network modeling and stochastic-molecular simulations) would benefit from intense cross-talk on shared theoretical issues in order to make progress on clinically relevant problems.
format Text
id pubmed-2697138
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2009
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-26971382009-06-16 Computational disease modeling – fact or fiction? Tegnér, Jesper N Compte, Albert Auffray, Charles An, Gary Cedersund, Gunnar Clermont, Gilles Gutkin, Boris Oltvai, Zoltán N Stephan, Klaas Enno Thomas, Randy Villoslada, Pablo BMC Syst Biol Commentary BACKGROUND: Biomedical research is changing due to the rapid accumulation of experimental data at an unprecedented scale, revealing increasing degrees of complexity of biological processes. Life Sciences are facing a transition from a descriptive to a mechanistic approach that reveals principles of cells, cellular networks, organs, and their interactions across several spatial and temporal scales. There are two conceptual traditions in biological computational-modeling. The bottom-up approach emphasizes complex intracellular molecular models and is well represented within the systems biology community. On the other hand, the physics-inspired top-down modeling strategy identifies and selects features of (presumably) essential relevance to the phenomena of interest and combines available data in models of modest complexity. RESULTS: The workshop, "ESF Exploratory Workshop on Computational disease Modeling", examined the challenges that computational modeling faces in contributing to the understanding and treatment of complex multi-factorial diseases. Participants at the meeting agreed on two general conclusions. First, we identified the critical importance of developing analytical tools for dealing with model and parameter uncertainty. Second, the development of predictive hierarchical models spanning several scales beyond intracellular molecular networks was identified as a major objective. This contrasts with the current focus within the systems biology community on complex molecular modeling. CONCLUSION: During the workshop it became obvious that diverse scientific modeling cultures (from computational neuroscience, theory, data-driven machine-learning approaches, agent-based modeling, network modeling and stochastic-molecular simulations) would benefit from intense cross-talk on shared theoretical issues in order to make progress on clinically relevant problems. BioMed Central 2009-06-04 /pmc/articles/PMC2697138/ /pubmed/19497118 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1752-0509-3-56 Text en Copyright © 2009 Tegnér et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0) ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Commentary
Tegnér, Jesper N
Compte, Albert
Auffray, Charles
An, Gary
Cedersund, Gunnar
Clermont, Gilles
Gutkin, Boris
Oltvai, Zoltán N
Stephan, Klaas Enno
Thomas, Randy
Villoslada, Pablo
Computational disease modeling – fact or fiction?
title Computational disease modeling – fact or fiction?
title_full Computational disease modeling – fact or fiction?
title_fullStr Computational disease modeling – fact or fiction?
title_full_unstemmed Computational disease modeling – fact or fiction?
title_short Computational disease modeling – fact or fiction?
title_sort computational disease modeling – fact or fiction?
topic Commentary
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2697138/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19497118
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1752-0509-3-56
work_keys_str_mv AT tegnerjespern computationaldiseasemodelingfactorfiction
AT comptealbert computationaldiseasemodelingfactorfiction
AT auffraycharles computationaldiseasemodelingfactorfiction
AT angary computationaldiseasemodelingfactorfiction
AT cedersundgunnar computationaldiseasemodelingfactorfiction
AT clermontgilles computationaldiseasemodelingfactorfiction
AT gutkinboris computationaldiseasemodelingfactorfiction
AT oltvaizoltann computationaldiseasemodelingfactorfiction
AT stephanklaasenno computationaldiseasemodelingfactorfiction
AT thomasrandy computationaldiseasemodelingfactorfiction
AT villosladapablo computationaldiseasemodelingfactorfiction