↓ Skip to main content

Nonlinear mixed-effects modelling for single cell estimation: when, why, and how to use it

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Systems Biology, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
43 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
85 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Nonlinear mixed-effects modelling for single cell estimation: when, why, and how to use it
Published in
BMC Systems Biology, September 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12918-015-0203-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Markus Karlsson, David L.I. Janzén, Lucia Durrieu, Alejandro Colman-Lerner, Maria C. Kjellsson, Gunnar Cedersund

Abstract

Studies of cell-to-cell variation have in recent years grown in interest, due to improved bioanalytical techniques which facilitates determination of small changes with high uncertainty. Like much high-quality data, single-cell data is best analysed using a systems biology approach. The most common systems biology approach to single-cell data is the standard two-stage (STS) approach. In STS, data from each cell is analysed in a separate sub-problem, meaning that only data from the same cell is used to calculate the parameter values within that cell. Because only parts of the data are considered, problems with parameter unidentifiability are exaggerated in STS. In contrast, a related approach to data analysis has been developed for the studies of patient-to-patient variations. This approach, called nonlinear mixed-effects modelling (NLME), makes use of all data, when estimating the patient-specific parameters. NLME would therefore be advantageous compared to STS also for the study of cell-to-cell variation. However, no such systematic evaluation of the two approaches exists. Herein, such a systematic comparison between STS and NLME has been performed. Different examples, both linear and nonlinear, and both simulated and real experimental data, have been examined. With informative data, there is no significant difference in the results for either parameter or noise estimation. However, when data becomes uninformative, NLME is significantly superior to STS. These results hold independently of whether the loss of information is due to a low signal-to-noise ratio, too few data points, or a bad input signal. The improvement is shown to come from both the consideration of a joint likelihood (JLH) function, describing all parameters and data, and from an a priori postulated form of the population parameters. Finally, we provide a small tutorial that shows how to use NLME for single-cell analysis, using the free and user-friendly software Monolix. When considering uninformative single-cell data, NLME yields more accurate parameter and noise estimates, compared to more traditional approaches, such as STS and JLH.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 85 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 85 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 24%
Researcher 16 19%
Student > Master 16 19%
Professor > Associate Professor 6 7%
Student > Bachelor 3 4%
Other 8 9%
Unknown 16 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 13 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 13 15%
Mathematics 11 13%
Computer Science 6 7%
Engineering 4 5%
Other 18 21%
Unknown 20 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 September 2015.
All research outputs
#21,264,673
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Systems Biology
#1,006
of 1,126 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#230,065
of 269,524 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Systems Biology
#27
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,126 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.6. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 269,524 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.