Digital Twins and Reproducibility

Bridging Point-and-Click COPASI Software with Open-Source and Flexible R Programming language

First Published: Mar 14, 2025

Last updated: Jun 23, 2025


Bastien CHASSAGNOL |
Post-Doc
LPSM, Sorbonne Université

Lilija WEHLING |
Ph.D.
VPE BioMed X Institute

Atreye BANERJEE |
Ph.D.
Max Planck Institute of Polymer Research, Mainz

Soria GASPARINI |
Ph.D.
Heidelberg University

Sanjana Balaji KUTTAE |
Computational Biologist (Research Assistant)
VPE BioMed X Institute


Slides available on GitHub

Talks’ Layout

  • Reproducibility Crisis. ⚠️
  • IBD ODE Model 📓
  • IBD Numerical Simulations 💻
  • BioModels database 📁

Reproducibility Crisis

Is there a Reproducibility crisis?


Nature’s survey of 1,576 researchers on reproducibility in research. Reproduced from Fig1, 1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility, from Baker (2016).

Nature’s survey of 1,576 researchers on reproducibility in research. Reproduced from Fig1, 1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility, from Baker (2016).

Physicists and chemists show the most confidence, in contrast with social or biological studies. Reproduced from Fig2, 1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility, from Baker (2016).

Physicists and chemists show the most confidence, in contrast with social or biological studies. Reproduced from Fig2, 1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility, from Baker (2016).
  • \(52\%\) considering there’s a significant crisis

  • \(90\%\) considering there’s a Reproducibility crisis generally speaking

  • From Open Science Collaboration (2015) analyses, \(40\%\) of studies in psychology are trustworthy…

  • … and only \(10\%\) in cancer biology, from Begley and Ellis (2012).

Different types of reproducibility

Aka Methodological Reproducibility:

  • Ability to repeat the same experiment using the same methodology and obtain the same results
  • Example in scRNA-seq: 2 teams working on the same tissue, get similar distribution of cell type abundances
  • Example in biomedical studies: The Initiative et al. (2025) Brasilian consortium only recovered findings of \(1/4\) of 3 commonly used techniques for quantifying gene expression, while demonstrating systematic underestimation of true coefficient of variation in original experiments.
  • Also named Inferential Reproducibility

  • Reproduce statistical results derived from data analysis using the same statistical methods (or slightly similar ones)

  • Examples in sensitivity analyses: does a change of the random seed or the sampling process induce significant changes of biological findings?1

Satirical illustration of Data dredging, aka data snooping or p-hacking, from sbmc-comics.

Satirical illustration of Data dredging, aka data snooping or \(p\)-hacking, from sbmc-comics.
  • Also named Result Reproducibility, the most generalist.

  • Ability to reproduce the computational aspects of a study, including reproducing Figures, Tables, or other outputs from the data and code provided.

  • Example in ODE models: given the same fixed parameters, can you recover the steady-state conditions?

Reproduce figures and results from peer-reviewed papers I

Main factors contributing to non-reproducible research. Unavailable code and/or datasets is one of the most quoted reasons, while being one of the easiest to address with. Reproduced from Fig.4, Baker (2016).

Main factors contributing to non-reproducible research. Unavailable code and/or datasets is one of the most quoted reasons, while being one of the easiest to address with. Reproduced from Fig.4, Baker (2016).

Mentoring and training emerge out as the main incentives, along with more stringent journal guidelines. Reproduced from Fig.5, Baker (2016).

Mentoring and training emerge out as the main incentives, along with more stringent journal guidelines. Reproduced from Fig.5, Baker (2016).

Reproduce figures and results from peer-reviewed papers II


Repro-hackathons as community-driven events to overcome reproducibility crisis:

Comparison of differentially expressed genes among 12 groups, illustrated by upset plots. Reproduced from Fig.6, @cokelaer2023b

Comparison of differentially expressed genes among 12 groups, illustrated by upset plots. Reproduced from Fig.6, @cokelaer2023b
  • Core objective: 12 group students aim at recovering DEGs from a peer-reviewed publication.

  • Two-stage Hackathon:

    1. Free choice of differential analysis model, genome reference and filtering thresholds (scenario A)
    2. Constrained choice of methods and hyperparameters (scenario B)
  • Conclusion: DEGs poorly overlap between the groups, whereas all pipelines were runnable.

Repro-hackathon to curate biological models to unified SBML standards

BioModels x BioQuant x BioMedX Team VPE sponsors.

BioModels x BioQuant x BioMedX Team VPE sponsors.
  • curate 11 mathematical models of human disease in 2️⃣ days
  • One 🔬, one 💻, and one .
  • 📊 Reproduce, or recode, at least one output of a given biological model + curate species to standard ontologies.

An ODE of the Immune System

Inflammatory Bowel Disease: an ODE model

Code
flowchart LR

      subgraph Macrophages
      A["Inactivated Macrophage $$\,M_0$$"] --> B["Activated Macrophage $$\, M_1 M_2$$"]
      end
      
      subgraph Cytokines
      B <-->|"Inflammation"| C["TNF-$$\alpha$$"]      
      B <--> D["IL-10"]
      B <--> E["TGF-$$\beta$$"]
      B --> F["IL-6"]
      B --> G["IL-21"]
      B --> H["IL-4"]
      B --> I["IL-2"]
      B <--> J["IFN-$$\gamma$$"]
      J --> I      
      I --> D 
      D --x I
      end
      
      subgraph T cells      
      M["Th17"] x--x N["Treg"]
      K["Th1"] x--x L["Th2"]
      K --> J
      I <--> K
      L <--> H
      M <--> E
      N <--> E
      N <--> D
      C --x N
      N --x K & L
      J & H --x M
      end
      
    linkStyle 11,12,13,20,21,22,23,24 stroke:red, stroke-width:5px;
    linkStyle 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,14,15,16,17,18,19 stroke:green, stroke-width:5px;

flowchart LR

      subgraph Macrophages
      A["Inactivated Macrophage $$\,M_0$$"] --> B["Activated Macrophage $$\, M_1 M_2$$"]
      end
      
      subgraph Cytokines
      B <-->|"Inflammation"| C["TNF-$$\alpha$$"]      
      B <--> D["IL-10"]
      B <--> E["TGF-$$\beta$$"]
      B --> F["IL-6"]
      B --> G["IL-21"]
      B --> H["IL-4"]
      B --> I["IL-2"]
      B <--> J["IFN-$$\gamma$$"]
      J --> I      
      I --> D 
      D --x I
      end
      
      subgraph T cells      
      M["Th17"] x--x N["Treg"]
      K["Th1"] x--x L["Th2"]
      K --> J
      I <--> K
      L <--> H
      M <--> E
      N <--> E
      N <--> D
      C --x N
      N --x K & L
      J & H --x M
      end
      
    linkStyle 11,12,13,20,21,22,23,24 stroke:red, stroke-width:5px;
    linkStyle 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,14,15,16,17,18,19 stroke:green, stroke-width:5px;

Depiction of the ODE Network of immune cells and cytokines’ interactions. Reproduced from Fig.1, @lo2016po

Original rendering on Mermaid Edit

Original rendering on Mermaid Edit

Main classes of ODE models, ordered by increasing complexity1

  • Constant fluxes, and/or Production and decay model.

  • Example: secretion of IL-2 by Th1 cells minus IL-2 decay, in Equation 1:

    • \(I_2\): cytokine concentration
    • \(T_1\): substrate, cell-type abundance
    • \(\nu_{21}\) and \(\delta_2\): parameters of the model, respectively production rate and decay rate

\[ \frac{dI_2}{dt} = \nu_{21} T_1 - \delta_2 I_2 \qquad(1)\]

  • Catalytic activation: used when a the speed of the reaction is driven by a limiting resource:

  • Lo et al. (2016) models reactions’ kinetics with a Michaelis-Menten process.

  • Example: differentiation of \(M_0\) macrophages into \(M_1\) functional macrophages driven by \(TNF-\alpha\), see Equation 2:

    • \(f_1\): (optional), basal activation of \(M_0\)
    • \(M_0\): undifferentiated substrate
    • \(I_{\alpha}\): modifier or catalyst of the reaction (e.g., antigen, cytokine precursor)
    • \(\sigma_{M_{\alpha}}\): maximum rate signalling or activation rate.
    • \(\zeta _{M_{\alpha}}\): half-saturation constant

\[ \frac{dM_1}{dt} = \left(f_1 + \frac{\sigma_{M_{\alpha}} I_{\alpha}}{\zeta _{M_{\alpha}} + I_{\alpha}}\right) M_0 \qquad(2)\]

  • Uncompetitive inhibition, formula is the inverse of the catalytic activation.

  • Example: alteration of IL-\(21\) activation efficiency by the IL-4 interleukin, in Equation 3:

    • \(M\): the macrophages subset
    • \(\zeta_4\): Michaelis half-constant for inhibition activity
    • \(I_{21}\) and \(I_4\): Activator and Inhibitor concentration, respectively

\[ \frac{dT_{17}}{dt} = M \frac{1}{1 + \frac{I_4}{\zeta_4}} \qquad(3)\]

  • Complex and intertwined network of positive and negative Feedback loops.
  • Example: Differentiation of T-17 population is primarily driven by macrophages induction.
  • However, the overall efficiency is regulated by a complex balance of cytokines activation and repression, see Figure 1:
Figure 1: Complex regulatory mechanism of \(T_{17}\) immune cells, from Lo et al. (2016), Eq.14. Macrophages induction is enhanced by interleukin \(I_{\beta}\) in conjunction with \(I_{21}\) and \(I_6\), but inhibited by both interleukins \(I_4\) and \(I_{\gamma}\). Finally, a natural death of the cells occurred.

Unrepresented ODE equations include Logistic Growth Models (used for population dynamics in which crowding effects matter), Hill equations (controlling the steepness of feedback loops), or Competitive inhibitions.

All ODE equations adhere to the rate-law principle, see Tip 1.

Tip 1: Mass-action principle

The following mass-action reaction (Equation 4):

\[ aA + bB \rightarrow P \qquad(4)\]

adheres to the following rate law(Equation 5)1

\[ \text{Rate} = k [A]^a [B]^b \qquad(5)\]


  • 80 pre-defined functions in COPASI, from basic constant fluxes to complex competitive enzymatic reactions
  • Feature for providing user-defined functions
  • Critical: identify if the reaction is reversible or irreversible (uni-directional)
  • Critical 2: assign each element of the reaction one of these values, parameter, modifier, product or substrate.

Personalised medecine applied to Inflammatory Bowel Disease

1) Steady-state conditions

Note 1: Derive Steady-States Conditions of an ODE model

Computing the steady-state conditions for an ordinary differential equation (ODE) means finding the system’s equilibrium points, where the variables remain constant over time. Given a system of \(n=15\) ODEs (number of varying species in our model):

\[ \begin{cases} \frac{dx_1}{dt} &= f_1(x_1, x_2, \dots, x_{15}) \\ &\vdots \\ \frac{dx_{15}}{dt} &= f_n(x_1, x_2, \dots, x_{15}) \end{cases} \]

the steady-state conditions are obtained by solving system Equation 6:

\[ \begin{cases} f_1(x_1^*, x_2^*, \dots, x_{15}^*)& = 0 \\ & \vdots \\ f_n(x_1^*, x_2^*, \dots, x_{15}^*) &= 0. \end{cases} \qquad(6)\]

1) Steady-state implementation

healthy_model <- loadModel("../../models/team_2016_final_model_lo2016_2025_05_13.cps")
healthy_steady_state <- runSteadyState(
  model = healthy_model,
  calculate_jacobian = TRUE,
  perform_stability_analysis = TRUE,
  method = list("use_newton"=TRUE, accept_negative_concentrations = FALSE)
)
1
Run CoRC::loadModel() function to load the COPASI model in R.
2
We use the CoRC::runSteadyState function to run the steady-states…
3
… and for this task, several algorithms can be chosen, when no explicit solution can be derived directly. We used in our framework the well-known root-finding Newton-Raphson algorithm.


1) Steady-state results

Species

Value(g/cm^3)

M1 macrophage

1.17e-02

M2 macrophage

8.17e-03

Th1 cell

1.40e-01

Th2 cell

3.99e-03

Th17 cell

6.18e-03

Treg cell

2.98e-04

NA

2.01e-07

IL-2

1.07e-08

IL-4

3.36e-09

IL-21

7.77e-08

IL-6

1.46e-06

NA

2.72e-05

IL-10

3.01e-08

NA

1.64e-13

IL-12

3.64e-07

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0165782.t004

Table 1: Steady-state concentrations of cytokines and immune cells, in healthy individuals in our model.

Original SS reported in Table 4, (Lo et al. 2016, 10).

Original SS reported in Table 4, (Lo et al. 2016, 10).

2) Sensitivity analyses


i) Sensitivity analysis Objectives

Sensitivity analysis aim to identify:

  • how changes in prior parameters affect the global model behaviour,
  • the most influential parameters on the outcome
  • prioritise where uncertainty matters most.

9️⃣ parameters were assumed in Lo et al. (2016) to have the strongest impact on the concentrations of T cell subsets. We retrieve their values, inferred from healthy individuals, using the CoRC::getParameters function (see Table 2):

Code
parameters_healthy <- getParameters(model = healthy_model,
                                  key = c("(Diff of M0 to M1).delta_m_cit",
                                          "(Diff of M1 to M2).sigma",
                                          "(Induction of T1 from M).s12",
                                          "(Proliferation of T1).s2",
                                          "(Induction of T2).s4",
                                          "(Induction of T17).s21",
                                          "(Induction of T17).s6",
                                          "(Induction of Tr).sb",
                                          "(Induction of Tr).s10")) |> 
  dplyr::select(-mapping)

flextable(parameters_healthy) |> 
  add_footer_row(values = "key is direct ID of the parameter in the model, reaction describes the biological mechanism associated with the value of the parameter, and value returns the constant value assumed for healthy individuals.", 
                 colwidths = 4) |> 
  bold(part = "header") 

key

name

reaction

value

(Diff of M0 to M1).delta_m_cit

delta_m_cit

Diff of M0 to M1

2.40

(Diff of M1 to M2).sigma

sigma

Diff of M1 to M2

24.00

(Induction of T1 from M).s12

s12

Induction of T1 from M

10.93

(Proliferation of T1).s2

s2

Proliferation of T1

1.23

(Induction of T2).s4

s4

Induction of T2

1.94

(Induction of T17).s21

s21

Induction of T17

156.17

(Induction of T17).s6

s6

Induction of T17

156.17

(Induction of Tr).sb

sb

Induction of Tr

14.02

(Induction of Tr).s10

s10

Induction of Tr

14.02

key is direct ID of the parameter in the model, reaction describes the biological mechanism associated with the value of the parameter, and value returns the constant value assumed for healthy individuals.

Table 2: The 9 reaction parameters evaluated for sensitivity analyses.

2) Sensitivity analyses


ii) Latin HyperCube Sampling, step I

Random Sampling for a \(d-\) random vector is performed as Equation 7:

\[ x_i^{(j)} \sim \mathcal{U}\left(x_{\min_j}^{(j)}, x_{\max_j}^{(j)}\right) \qquad(7)\]

\[ \begin{cases} j = 1, 2, \dots, d, \\ i = 1, 2, \dots, N \end{cases} \]

Random sampling, from @rustell. With a low number of observations, the clustering pattern inherent to standard random sampling is clearly showcased.

Random sampling, from @rustell. With a low number of observations, the clustering pattern inherent to standard random sampling is clearly showcased.

In Latin Hypercube Sampling (LHS):

  1. Sampling space is stratified into \(N\) equally-binned intervals for each dimension \(j\)
  2. Permutation is applied across all dimensions to avoid sampling correlation.
  3. Each sample is drawn from a distinct \(N-\) defined \(d-\)sized interval.

Latin hypercube sample, from Fig.3 @rustell.

Latin hypercube sample, from Fig.3 @rustell.

LHS provides a better Coverage of the Input Space and Improved Convergence, especially when the sampling size is large with respect to the number of draws

Main parameters:

  • \(x_i^{(j)}\) is the \(i\)-th sample drawn for the \(j\)-th dimension

  • \(d=9\) (number of parameters included in the sensitivity analysis)

  • \(N=5000\) the number of parameter distributions simulated

  • \(\mathcal{U}(x_{\min_j}^{(j)}, x_{\max_j}^{(j)})\) is the Uniform distribution, with bounds defined independently per dimension.


2) Sensitivity analyses


ii) Latin HyperCube Sampling, step II

n_samples <- 5000

parameters_sensitivity <- parameters_healthy$value
param_ranges <- tibble::tibble(parameters_name = parameters_healthy$key,
                               LB= parameters_sensitivity *0.8,
                               UB = parameters_sensitivity *1.2)


set.seed(20)
bootstrap_parameters <- lhs::randomLHS(n_samples, length(parameters_sensitivity))
for (i in seq_along(parameters_sensitivity)) {
  bootstrap_parameters[,i] <- qunif(bootstrap_parameters[,i],
                                    param_ranges$LB[i],
                                    param_ranges$UB[i])
}
apply(bootstrap_parameters,2, quantile)
1
Determine hyper-parameters of sensitivity analysis, such as the number of simulations \(N\), and lower and upper bounds within a \(\pm 20\%\) range.
2
We fix the random seed to ensure reproducibility of the sensitivity analyses.
3
The core function of the lhs package, lhs::randomLHS(), is only able to perform standard uniform sampling.
4
Apply the Inverse Transform Sampling Theorem (see Tip 2) to switch from a standard uniform distribution (\(U \sim \mathcal{U}(0, 1)\)) modelling to any bounded uniform distribution1
5
Apply the quantile function to verify the quantiles are rather close from their expected theoretical values from uniform sampling.

Tip 2: The Inverse Transform Sampling Theorem

The Inverse Transform Sampling Theorem allows generating any probability distribution from the standard uniform distribution, \(U \sim \mathcal{U}(0,1)\). Let \(X\) be a continuous random variable with cumulative distribution function (CDF) \(F(x)\) and \(F^{-1}\) its reciprocal (the quantile function), then:

\[ X = F^{-1}(U) \]

follows the same distribution as \(X\).

Specifically, by applying the following affine transformation \(X=a + (b - a) U\) on a standard uniformly distributed variable \(u\), \(X\) will follow this distribution: \(\mathcal{U}(a,b)\)

3) Partial Correlation Analyses


Standard Pearson correlation between two variables \(X\) and \(Y\) in Equation 8:

\[ \rho_{X,Y} = \frac{\text{Cov}(X, Y)}{\sigma_X \sigma_Y} \qquad(8)\]

  • \(\text{Cov}(X, Y)\) is the empirical covariance matrix.
  • \(\sigma_X = \sqrt{\text{Var}(X)}\) and \(\sigma_Y = \sqrt{\text{Var}(Y)}\) are standard deviations.

Measures the strength of the linear relationship between \(X\) and \(Y\), without controlling for confounding variables.

The Partial Correlation measures the linear relationship between two variables, conditioned on the remaining set of variables \(\mathrm{Z}\), given by Equation 9:

\[ \rho_{X,Y \mid \mathbf{Z}} = -\frac{\Omega_{X,Y}}{\sqrt{\Omega_{X,X} \Omega_{Y,Y}}} \qquad(9)\]

  • \(\mathbf{\Omega} = \mathbf{\Sigma}^{-1}\) is the precision matrix.
  • Non Null off-diagonal terms of the precision matrix reflect direct, causal connections between two variables.

Partial correlation enables more straightforward interpretation by revealing truly causal relationships, while discarding spurious connections.

In Figure 2,

  • The standard Pearson correlation would have certainly observed a significant correlation between variables \(A\) and \(C\).
  • This spurious connection between \(A\) and \(C\) due to the confusing effect of \(B\) is clipped using partial correlation instead.
Code
digraph G {
    layout=neato
    A -> B;
    B -> C;
}
G A AB BA->B C CB->C
Figure 2: Simple example of chain rule associations.


4) Rank Transformation and Scatter Plots


Original Fig.2. reproduced from (Lo et al. 2016, 11)

Fig.2. resulting from our own sensitivity analyses.
Figure 3: Scatter plots of rank-transformed concentrations of \(T_1\) and \(T_2\) immune cells, against 3 variations of parameters. We can depict at least 2 errors or biological inconsistencies from original simulations: PRCC is not strictly bounded between -1 and 1 (while it should have been normalised by the variances), and from Zenewicz, Antov, and Flavell (2009), and ODE Equations 12 and 13 from Lo et al. (2016), we would have expected a Th2 inhibition by Th1, in other words, a negative PRCC coefficient for factor \(\sigma_{12}\).


3) Patient stratification


i) Precision medicine

Precision Medicine Informatics: Principles, Prospects, and Challenges. Reproduced from Fig 1, Afzal et al. (2020).

Precision Medicine Informatics: Principles, Prospects, and Challenges. Reproduced from Fig 1, Afzal et al. (2020).

Traditional (left) Versus Personalised (right) Medicine approaches.

Types of disease

Species

Species' concentration at steady-state

Concentrations in IBD clusters

Fold Change

type 1

I6

1.46e-06

1.02e-07

-93.0%

type 1

I10

3.01e-08

1.48e-08

-51.0%

type 1

Ia

2.72e-05

1.88e-05

-31.0%

type 1

Ib*

1.64e-13

7.23e-14

-56.0%

type 1

Ig*

2.01e-07

2.01e-09

-99.0%

*These quantities have been numerically estimated.

Table 3: Fold Changes of cytokine concentrations, from Table 7, (Lo et al. 2016, 13).



3) Patient stratification


ii) Parameters’ estimation I: Methods

  1. Define parameters’ configuration per endotype (observed concentration values, ODE definition model, …)

  2. Run numerical optimisation algorithm to infer the values of free parameters to recover altered cytokine concentrations.

  3. Mock \(TNF-\alpha\) blockade by fixing the total concentration to 0:

    1. In COPASI, you switch the species’ status from reactions to fixed.

    2. With CoRC, use setSpecies function with initial_concentration = 0 and type ="fixed".

absolute_parameter_per_cluster <- purrr::map(fit_experiments, function(cluster) {
  CoRC::clearParameterEstimationParameters(model = healthy_model)
  CoRC::clearExperiments(model = healthy_model)
  return(runParameterEstimation(
    parameters = fit_parameters,
    experiments = cluster,
    method = list(method = "LevenbergMarquardt",
                  iteration_limit = 500,
                  tolerance = 1e-6),
    update_model = FALSE,
    randomize_start_values = FALSE,
    create_parameter_sets = TRUE,
    calculate_statistics = FALSE,
    model = healthy_model
  )$parameters)
})
1
One parameters’ estimation per endotype configuration. The number of observations, aka concentrations’ species, must exceed the number of free parameters to infer ⚠️
2
clearParameterEstimationParameters and clearExperiments guarantee a fresh start for each parameters estimation (equivalent to pandas.deepcopy()).
3
runParameterEstimation is used for estimating the 10 free parameters allowed to vary.
4
All numerical optimisation approaches to reduce the cost function between the observed steady-state concentrations and the expected ones are listed in Optimization Methods. For reproducible analyses, you need to provide the method and numerical optimisation hyper-parameters, such as iteration_limit or tolerance.

3) Patient stratification


ii) Parameters’ estimation II: Main Reproducibility Hurdles

  1. 🚫 No computer-readable datasets (only hard-coded pdf tables) ➡️ Manual typing is an error-proned process.

  2. 🚫 Averaged differential expression inputs instead of raw, individual values, preventing from:

    1. Reproducing differential analyses reported in Table 7, Lo et al. (2016).

    2. Running a multivariate regression model, thus artificially underestimating the uncertainty of the parameters.

  3. 🚫 No supplying of the parameters’ estimation approach:

    1. Optimisation method
    2. Hyper-parameters for evaluating numerical convergence
    3. Individual parameter weights

3) Patient stratification


iii) Parameters’ estimation III: Results

Original results, reproduced from (Lo et al. 2016, 13), Fig.3.

Original results, reproduced from (Lo et al. 2016, 13), Fig.3.

Barplots from our Reproducibility Analysis

Barplots from our Reproducibility Analysis

Simulated Fold Change variations of the cytokine and T-cell concentrations before and after TNF-\(\alpha\) blockade, per endotype. Blue bars represent the results of pre-treatment; red bars represent the results of post-treatment.

  • In original Cluster 4 (reduced abundances of Th1 and Th2 cell subsets), all species’ concentrations are decreasing

  • In reproduced Cluster 4, concentrations of IL-10, Tregs and TGF-\(\beta\) are increasing with respect to healthy state conditions, an effect magnified by blocking the production of IFN-\(\gamma\) ➡️ noting the positive feedback loop between these three entities, and the overall negative regulatory effect of Tregs on T cells concentrations, this result is biologically more meaningful.


3) Model Annotation


  1. General annotations of the model: name, biological processes modelled, publication if any, curation authors, …

  2. Annotate the models species (nodes of the ODE model) with established EBI-EMBL ontologies to enable cross-linking between databases:

    • UniProt for proteins (including cytokines)

    • Cell Line Ontology (CLO) for immune cells

    • Gene Ontology: GO terms for pathways.

  3. (Optional): detail each ODE reaction, namely edges (for instance, provide bibliographic references mentioning interplay between two cell types).

A compendium of the European Bioinformatics Institute’s ontologies. Reproduced from Fig.1, Brooksbank, Cameron, and Thornton (2010).

A compendium of the European Bioinformatics Institute’s ontologies. Reproduced from Fig.1, Brooksbank, Cameron, and Thornton (2010).

Screenshot from COPASI Annotation’s tab, Model Level.

Screenshot from COPASI Annotation’s tab, Model Level.

Screenshot from COPASI Annotation’s tab, Species Level.

Screenshot from COPASI Annotation’s tab, Species Level.


‼️ Major hurdle: choose among one of the 848 ontology databases listed under Identifiers


BioModels: a repository of biological models

BioModels: Metadata description

Around half of the publicly avalaible models are tagged manually-curated, a ratio decreasing over time. Features retrieved from Malik-Sheriff et al. (2020).

Main reasons underlying failure of reproducing models.
Figure 4: BioModels key features.

BioModels submission flowchart

From submission to publication of a model in BioModels. Reproduced from Fig4, from Malik-Sheriff et al. (2020)

From raw SBML format to curated status. Reproduced from Fig2.A, from Malik-Sheriff et al. (2020).
Figure 5

Conclusion

Hackathon’s results

Hackathon concluding photo, on August 29th 2024

Hackathon concluding photo, on August 29th 2024
  • 7️⃣ teams on-site, and 3️⃣ teams on-line.
  • 1️⃣ 1️⃣ mathematical models were hacked,including 2️⃣ curated models and 2️⃣ recoded
  • 🏆 a 3rd place for my team.


Hackathon Quarto Website

Modelling Perspectives

  • Numerous arbitrary choices for parameter estimation. Inferred from blood samples, while the ODE is applied on gut tissues…

  • … and arbitrary selection of regulatory cytokines.

  • No justification for the modelling kinetics assumptions:

    • All enzyme inhibitions are modelled as uncompetitive.
    • The inhibitor binds to the enzyme-substrate complex (ES), and not on the free enzymes ▶️ Rarely observed in practice.
    • Other models are available however, such as competitive or non-competitive.
  • Patient stratification into 4 endotypes is basic:

    • Driven by 2 factors only, namely the fold-change signs of \(T_1\) and \(T_2\) concentrations
    • Without FACS, transcriptomic expression of 2 master gene regulators have been used instead as proxies of T cells abundances.
  • Model at the organoid/tissue level (and not at the single cell level, as could have been performed by PhysiCell 😏)
  • 😦 No validation of the ODE model on real clinical datasets.

Take-Aways

  • Hard-coded tools, such as COPASI, enable quick analyses for non-expert audience

  • But they are limited in terms of functionalities and flexibility, to be used with caution.

  • BioModels, a data platform for storing curated biological models.

  • However, no automated running of code snippets, nor mandatory access to original data

  • Use Mermaid or Graphviz syntax for plotting graphs

  • Avoid Cytoscape or any point-and-click software, except for the final visual rendering ➡️

  • 📁 Streamlined and reproducible exporting, when paired with hard-coded adjacency matrices stored in .csv, or even better with dedicated Graph-based databases(.graphml or .gml)

This is a Quarto RevealJS Presentation. To learn more, visit https://quarto.org/docs/presentations/revealjs.


Take-Aways II

Take-Aways III

  • Only 2️⃣ IBD models available on BioModels, both loaded following the BioModels Hackathon …

. . .

  • 🚩 … and none could be be fully reproduced, due to limited data availability and missing modelling parametrisations.

. . .

  • Had to recode modelling scenarios and equations manually

  • ↪️ Ask authors of the paper to supply original datasets OR/AND

  • Automate these error-prone digitalisation processes with tailored OCR software:

    • 🆓 and open-source OCR1 maths-heavy PDF Content Extraction: PDF-Extract-Kit and (LaTeX-OCR/)[https://lukas-blecher.github.io/LaTeX-OCR/]
    • 💰 Corporate digitalised software: mathpix chained with LangChain or LlamaIndex for content refinement

Bibliographic References

Afzal, Muhammad, S. M. Riazul Islam, Maqbool Hussain, and Sungyoung Lee. 2020. ‘Precision Medicine Informatics: Principles, Prospects, and Challenges. IEEE Access 8: 13593–612. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2965955.
Baker, Monya. 2016. ‘1,500 Scientists Lift the Lid on Reproducibility’. Nature 533 (7604): 452–54. https://doi.org/10.1038/533452a.
Begley, C. Glenn, and Lee M. Ellis. 2012. ‘Raise Standards for Preclinical Cancer Research’. Nature 483 (7391): 531–33. https://doi.org/10.1038/483531a.
Brooksbank, Catherine, Graham Cameron, and Janet Thornton. 2010. ‘The European Bioinformatics Institute’s Data Resources’. Nucleic Acids Research 38 (suppl_1): D17–25. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkp986.
Heydarabadipour, Adel, Lucian Smith, Joseph L. Hellerstein, and Herbert M. Sauro. 2025. SBMLNetwork: A Framework for Standards-Based Visualization of Biochemical Models’. bioRxiv. https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.05.09.653024.
Initiative, The Brazilian Reproducibility, Olavo Bohrer Amaral, Clarissa Franca Dias Carneiro, Kleber Neves, Ana Paula Wasilewska Sampaio, Bruna Valerio Gomes, Mariana Boechat de Abreu, et al. 2025. ‘Estimating the Replicability of Brazilian Biomedical Science’. bioRxiv. https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.04.02.645026.
Larousserie, David. 2025. Les chercheurs français ne respectent pas les obligations en matière de publication de résultats des essais cliniques, May.
Lo, Wing-Cheong, Violeta Arsenescu, Razvan I. Arsenescu, and Avner Friedman. 2016. ‘Inflammatory Bowel Disease: How Effective Is TNF-\(\alpha\) Suppression?’ PloS One 11 (11): e0165782. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0165782.
Malik-Sheriff, Rahuman S, Mihai Glont, Tung V N Nguyen, Krishna Tiwari, Matthew G Roberts, Ashley Xavier, Manh T Vu, et al. 2020. BioModels—15 Years of Sharing Computational Models in Life Science’. Nucleic Acids Research 48 (D1): D407–15. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkz1055.
Naddaf, Miryam. 2025. AI Linked to Explosion of Low-Quality Biomedical Research Papers’. Nature, May. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-025-01592-0.
Open Science Collaboration. 2015. ‘Estimating the Reproducibility of Psychological Science’. Science 349 (6251): aac4716. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac4716.
Udesky, Laurie. 2025. Publish or Perish” Culture Blamed for Reproducibility Crisis’. Nature, January. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-04253-w.
Zenewicz, Lauren A., Andrey Antov, and Richard A. Flavell. 2009. CD4 T-cell Differentiation and Inflammatory Bowel Disease’. Trends in Molecular Medicine 15 (5): 199–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molmed.2009.03.002.

Reproducibility Recent News

  • LinkedIn Post and AI linked to explosion of low-quality biomedical research papers, from Naddaf (2025), reports associations between health conditions and omics variables that seem driven from LLM-generated outputs. Proper statistical analyses fail in recovering these pairwise interactions in half of the cases!!

  • From recent Le Monde newspaper, written by Larousserie (2025), half of the clinical trials’ outcomes are not publicly available. Surprisingly, the ratio of unpublished results tops the \(78\%\) for public research (CHU, universities, public institutes…), against \(30\%\) for private pharmaceutical companies.

  • ‘Publish or perish’ culture blamed for reproducibility crisis: recent survey of \(1,600\) biomedical researchers, from Udesky (2025) flagged small sample sizes, cherry-picking and pressuring editorial guidelines as leading causes of reproducibility problems.

About

License rights

© 2025 Bastien CHASSAGNOL

Opinions expressed are solely my own and do not express the views of the researchers I am associated with.

This work is released under the MIT license.

Made by Quarto Presentations RevealJs