Finite state projection based bounds to compare chemical master equation models using single-cell data.

Emerging techniques now allow for precise quantification of distributions of biological molecules in single cells. These rapidly advancing experimental methods have created a need for more rigorous and efficient modeling tools. Here, we derive new bounds on the likelihood that observations of single-cell, single-molecule responses come from a discrete stochastic model, posed in the form of the chemical master equation. These strict upper and lower bounds are based on a finite state projection approach, and they converge monotonically to the exact likelihood value. These bounds allow one to discriminate rigorously between models and with a minimum level of computational effort. In practice, these bounds can be incorporated into stochastic model identification and parameter inference routines, which improve the accuracy and efficiency of endeavors to analyze and predict single-cell behavior. We demonstrate the applicability of our approach using simulated data for three example models as well as for experimental measurements of a time-varying stochastic transcriptional response in yeast.

[1]  Brian Munsky,et al.  Integrating single-molecule experiments and discrete stochastic models to understand heterogeneous gene transcription dynamics. , 2015, Methods.

[2]  Jie Liang,et al.  Optimal enumeration of state space of finitely buffered stochastic molecular networks and exact computation of steady state landscape probability , 2008, BMC Systems Biology.

[3]  Wei Yu,et al.  Iterative water-filling for Gaussian vector multiple-access channels , 2001, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory.

[4]  A. van Oudenaarden,et al.  Using Gene Expression Noise to Understand Gene Regulation , 2012, Science.

[5]  Cleve B. Moler,et al.  Nineteen Dubious Ways to Compute the Exponential of a Matrix, Twenty-Five Years Later , 1978, SIAM Rev..

[6]  D. Gillespie Exact Stochastic Simulation of Coupled Chemical Reactions , 1977 .

[7]  Brian Munsky,et al.  Listening to the noise: random fluctuations reveal gene network parameters , 2009, Molecular systems biology.

[8]  John Lygeros,et al.  Designing experiments to understand the variability in biochemical reaction networks , 2013, Journal of The Royal Society Interface.

[9]  K. Burrage,et al.  Stochastic models for regulatory networks of the genetic toggle switch. , 2006, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[10]  M. Khammash,et al.  Transient analysis of stochastic switches and trajectories with applications to gene regulatory networks. , 2008, IET systems biology.

[11]  Mustafa Khammash,et al.  Parameter Estimation and Model Selection in Computational Biology , 2010, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[12]  Thomas A. Henzinger,et al.  Solving the chemical master equation using sliding windows , 2010, BMC Systems Biology.

[13]  M. Khammash,et al.  Systematic Identification of Signal-Activated Stochastic Gene Regulation , 2013, Science.

[14]  Fabian Rudolf,et al.  Transient Activation of the HOG MAPK Pathway Regulates Bimodal Gene Expression , 2011, Science.

[15]  M. Khammash,et al.  The finite state projection algorithm for the solution of the chemical master equation. , 2006, The Journal of chemical physics.

[16]  J. Lygeros,et al.  Moment-based inference predicts bimodality in transient gene expression , 2012, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[17]  F S Fay,et al.  Visualization of single RNA transcripts in situ. , 1998, Science.

[18]  João Pedro Hespanha,et al.  Approximate Moment Dynamics for Chemically Reacting Systems , 2011, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control.

[19]  J. Collins,et al.  Construction of a genetic toggle switch in Escherichia coli , 2000, Nature.