Facilitating Drug Discovery and Development with Mechanistic Physiological Models that are "Fit for Purpose": Introducing a Model Qualification Method.

Mechanistic physiological models are powerful tools that leverage scientific knowledge and data to improve decision-making in drug discovery and development. While similar types of mechanistic models have been used in other disciplines and industries for decades, their use in drug discovery and development is in its relative infancy, and no standard method exists for ensuring that such models are qualified for their intended use. We propose here a broadly applicable model qualification method to ensure that mechanistic physiological models are fit for purpose. The proposed criteria address issues of relevance to the research context, dealing with uncertainty and variability, and ensuring that model results are qualitatively and quantitatively consistent with test data. Use of the model qualification method brings structure to model-based research and creates a common language and improved buy-in for cross-functional teams faced with making decisions at every step of the drug development process.

[1]  K. S. Brown,et al.  Statistical mechanical approaches to models with many poorly known parameters. , 2003, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[2]  Marc Pfister,et al.  Model‐Based Drug Development Survey Finds Pharmacometrics Impacting Decision Making in the Pharmaceutical Industry , 2010, Journal of clinical pharmacology.

[3]  N Le Novère,et al.  SysBioMed report: advancing systems biology for medical applications. , 2009, IET systems biology.

[4]  Ben van Ommen,et al.  Nutritional Systems Biology Modeling: From Molecular Mechanisms to Physiology , 2009, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[5]  Michael J Joyner,et al.  Ten questions about systems biology , 2011, The Journal of physiology.

[6]  Zvia Agur,et al.  Use of Virtual Patient Populations for Rescuing Discontinued Drug Candidates and for Reducing the Number of Patients in Clinical Trials , 2009, Alternatives to laboratory animals : ATLA.

[7]  Jogarao V. S. Gobburu,et al.  A new equivalence based metric for predictive check to qualify mixed-effects models , 2005, The AAPS Journal.

[8]  Natal A. W. van Riel,et al.  Dynamic modelling and analysis of biochemical networks: mechanism-based models and model-based experiments , 2006, Briefings Bioinform..

[9]  J. Rullmann,et al.  Systems biology for battling rheumatoid arthritis: application of the Entelos PhysioLab platform. , 2005, Systems biology.

[10]  Pamela K. Kreeger,et al.  Cancer systems biology: a network modeling perspective , 2009, Carcinogenesis.

[11]  Nicholas H. G. Holford,et al.  The Visual Predictive Check Superiority to Standard Diagnostic (Rorschach) Plots , 2005 .

[12]  Y. Lazebnik Can a biologist fix a radio? -- Or, what I learned while studying apoptosis, (Cancer Cell. 2002 Sep;2(3):179-82). , 2002, Biochemistry. Biokhimiia.

[13]  David S Wishart,et al.  Computational systems biology in drug discovery and development: methods and applications. , 2007, Drug discovery today.

[14]  Ping Zhang,et al.  Guidelines for computer modeling of diabetes and its complications , 2004 .

[15]  Hiroaki Kitano,et al.  Next generation simulation tools: the Systems Biology Workbench and BioSPICE integration. , 2003, Omics : a journal of integrative biology.

[16]  Ton Rullmann,et al.  Target validation in silico: does the virtual patient cure the pharma pipeline? , 2006, Expert opinion on therapeutic targets.

[17]  Danny Petrasek Systems Biology: The Case for a Systems Science Approach to Diabetes , 2008, Journal of diabetes science and technology.

[18]  E. Kunkel Systems biology in drug discovery , 2004, Nature Biotechnology.

[19]  Daniel A. Beard,et al.  Strong Inference for Systems Biology , 2009, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[20]  U. Bhalla,et al.  Systems modeling: a pathway to drug discovery. , 2005, Current opinion in chemical biology.

[21]  Christina Maria Friedrich,et al.  In silico predictions of target clinical efficacy , 2004 .

[22]  Christopher R Myers,et al.  Extracting Falsifiable Predictions from Sloppy Models , 2007, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

[23]  K Gadkar,et al.  The Type 1 Diabetes PhysioLab® Platform: a validated physiologically based mathematical model of pathogenesis in the non‐obese diabetic mouse , 2010, Clinical and experimental immunology.

[24]  Richard H. Middleton,et al.  Quantifying uncertainty, variability and likelihood for ordinary differential equation models , 2010, BMC Systems Biology.

[25]  Christopher R. Myers,et al.  Universally Sloppy Parameter Sensitivities in Systems Biology Models , 2007, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[26]  Daniel A Beard,et al.  Computational modeling of physiological systems. , 2005, Physiological genomics.

[27]  Seth Michelson,et al.  Chapter 27. Biosimulation: Dynamic modeling of biological systems , 2002 .

[28]  Michael Kohl,et al.  Standards, databases, and modeling tools in systems biology. , 2011, Methods in molecular biology.

[29]  K. S. Brown,et al.  Sloppy-model universality class and the Vandermonde matrix. , 2006, Physical review letters.

[30]  J. Doyle,et al.  Reverse Engineering of Biological Complexity , 2002, Science.

[31]  Neil Benson,et al.  Systems Pharmacology: Bridging Systems Biology and Pharmacokinetics-Pharmacodynamics (PKPD) in Drug Discovery and Development , 2011, Pharmaceutical Research.

[32]  D. Lauffenburger,et al.  Applying computational modeling to drug discovery and development. , 2006, Drug discovery today.

[33]  D. Kirschner,et al.  A methodology for performing global uncertainty and sensitivity analysis in systems biology. , 2008, Journal of theoretical biology.

[34]  Matthias von Herrath,et al.  Virtual Optimization of Nasal Insulin Therapy Predicts Immunization Frequency to Be Crucial for Diabetes Protection , 2010, Diabetes.