With the increasing size and complexity of models, developing models by composing existing ones becomes more important. We exploit the idea of reusing simulation experiments of individual models for composition to automatically generate experiments for the composed model. First, we illustrate the process of modeling based on composition and discuss the role simulation experiments can play in this process. Our focus is on semantic validation of the composed model. We explicitly specify simulation experiments in simulation experiment specification via a Scala layer, including the desired model behavioral properties and their required experiment set-ups. Models are annotated with experiment specifications, and upon composition, these specifications are adapted and automatically executed for the composed model. The approach is applied in a case study of developing a Wnt/β-catenin signaling pathway model by successively composing three individual models, where we exploit metric interval temporal logic to describe model behavioral properties and check averages of stochastic simulation results against these properties.
PageEHOpperJM.Observations on the complexity of composable simulation. In: Proceedings of the 31st winter simulation conference, Phoenix, Arizona, USA, 5–8 December 1999, pp. 553–560. New York, NY: ACM.
2.
PettyMDWeiselEW.A composability lexicon. In: Proceedings of the spring 2003 simulation interoperability workshop, Orlando, Florida, USA, 30 March–4 April 2003, pp.181–187. Orlando, FL: Simulation Interoperability Standards Organization.
3.
BalciO.Verification validation and accreditation of simulation models. In: Proceedings of the 29th Winter Simulation Conference, Atlanta, Georgia, USA, 7–10 December 1997, pp.135–141. Washington, DC: IEEE.
4.
StellingJMendesPKlippE. Defining modeling strategies for Systems Biology. Report, FutureSysBio Workshop, Göteborg, Sweden, 2011.
5.
PengDEwaldRUhrmacherAM.Towards semantic model composition via experiments. In: Proceedings of the 2nd ACM SIGSIM conference on principles of advanced discrete simulation, Denver, Colorado, USA, 18–21 May 2014, pp.151–162. New York, NY: ACM.
6.
BalciO. A life cycle for modeling and simulation. Simulation2012; 88: 870–883.
7.
SargentRG. Verification and validation of simulation models. J Simul2013; 7: 12–24.
8.
KasputisSNgHC.Model composability: Formulating a research thrust: Composable simulations. In: Proceedings of the 32nd winter simulation conference, Orlando, Florida, USA, 10–13 December 2000, pp. 1577–1584. San Diego, CA: Society for Computer Simulation International.
9.
SzaboCTeoYM.An approach to semantic-based model discovery and selection. In: Proceedings of the 43rd winter simulation conference, Phoenix, Arizona, USA, 11–14 December 2011, pp.3054–3066. Washington, DC: IEEE.
10.
RobinsonSArbezGBirtaLG. Conceptual modeling: Definition, purpose and benefits. In: 47th winter simulation conference, Huntington Beach, California, USA, 6–9 December 2015, pp.2812–2826. Washington, DC, USA: IEEE.
11.
ChwifLBanksJde Moura FilhoJP. A framework for specifying a discrete-event simulation conceptual model. J Simul2013; 7: 50–60.
12.
RobinsonS. Conceptual modelling for simulation part i: Definition and requirements. J Oper Res Soc2008; 59: 278–290.
13.
TolkADialloSYKingRD. Conceptual modeling for composition of model-based complex systems. In: Conceptual modeling for discrete-event simulation, 2010, pp.355–381. Boca Raton, FL: CRC.
14.
TeoYMSzaboC.Codes: An integrated approach to composable modeling and simulation. In: Proceedings of the 41st annual simulation symposium, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, 13–16 April 2008, pp.103–110. Washington, DC, USA: IEEE.
15.
MoradiFAyaniRTanG.A rule-based approach to syntactic and semantic composition of BOMs. In: Proceedings of the 11th IEEE international symposium on distributed simulation and real-time applications, Chania, Crete Island, Greece, 22–24 October 2007, pp.145–155. Washington, DC: IEEE.
16.
NealMLCoolingMTSmithLP. A reappraisal of how to build modular, reusable models of biological systems. PLoS Computational Biology10(10): e1003849.
17.
DavisPKAndersonRH. Improving the composability of DoD models and simulations. JDMS2004; 1: 5–17.
18.
LiCDonizelliMRodriguezN. Biomodels database: An enhanced, curated and annotated resource for published quantitative kinetic models. BMC Syst Biol2010; 4: 92.
19.
RandhawaRShafferCATysonJJ. Model composition for macromolecular regulatory networks. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Computational Biology and Bioinformatics2010; 7: 278–287.
20.
RöhlMUhrmacherAM.Composing simulations from XML-specified model components. In: Proceedings of the 38th Winter Simulation Conference, Monterey, California, USA, 3–6 December 2006, pp.1083–1090. Washington, DC, USA: IEEE.
21.
SzaboCTeoYM.On syntactic composability, model reuse. In: Proceedings of the first Asia international conference on modelling & simulation, Phuket, Thailand, 27–30 March 2007, pp.230–237. Washington, DC, USA: IEEE.
22.
VassMTShafferCARamakrishnanN. The JigCell model builder: A spreadsheet interface for creating biochemical reaction network models. IEEE/ACM Trans Comput Biol Bioinform2006; 3(2): 155–164.
23.
SzaboCTeoYM. An analysis of the cost of validating semantic composability. J Simul2012; 6: 152–163.
OverstreetCMNanceREBalciO.Issues in enhancing model reuse. In: Proceedings of the first international conference on grand challenges for modeling and simulation, San Antonio, Texas, USA, 27–31 January 2002, pp. 27–31. San Diego, CA: Society for Computer Simulation International.
26.
PettyMDWeiselEW.A formal basis for a theory of semantic composability. In: Proceedings of the spring 2003 simulation interoperability workshop, Orlando, Florida, USA, 30 March–4 April 2003, pp.416–423. Orlando, FL: Simulation Interoperability Standards Organization.
27.
WeiselEPettyMMielkeR.Validity of models and classes of models in semantic composability. In: Proceedings of the fall 2003 simulation interoperability workshop, Orlando, Florida, USA, 14–19 September 2003. Orlando, FL: Simulation Interoperability Standards Organization.
28.
SzaboCTeoYM.An approach for validation of semantic composability in simulation models. In: Proceedings of the 2009 ACM/IEEE/SCS 23rd workshop on principles of advanced and distributed simulation, Lake Placid, New York, USA, 22–25 June 2003, pp.3–10. Washington, DC: IEEE.
29.
SzaboCTeoYMSeeS.A time-based formalism for the validation of semantic composability. In: Proceedings of the 41st winter simulation conference, Austin, Texas, USA, 13–16 December 2009, pp.1411–1422. Washington, DC: IEEE.
30.
TraoreMK.Analyzing static and temporal properties of simulation models. In: Proceedings of the 38th winter simulation conference, Monterey, California, USA, 3–6 December 2006, pp.897–904. Washington, DC, USA: IEEE.
31.
VerbraeckAValentinEC.Design guidelines for simulation building blocks. In: Proceedings of the 40th winter simulation conference, Miami, Florida, USA, 7–10 December 2008, pp.923–932. Washington, DC: IEEE.
32.
PedersenMPhillipsA.Towards programming languages for genetic engineering of living cells. J R Soc Interface2009; 6(Suppl 4): S437–S450.
33.
SmithLPBergmannFTChandranD. Antimony: A modular model definition language. Bioinformatics2009; 25: 2452–2454.
NovèreNLFinneyAHuckaM. Minimum information requested in the annotation of biochemical models (MIRIAM). Nat Biotechnol2005; 23: 1509–1515.
36.
GrimmVBergerUDeAngelisDL. The ODD protocol: A review and first update. Ecol Modell2010; 221: 2760–2768.
37.
GrimmVPolhillPTouzaJ.Documenting social simulation models: The ODD protocol as a standard. In: Simulating social complexity - a handbook. Berlin: Springer, 2013, pp.117–133.
38.
GennariJHNealMLGaldzickiM. Multiple ontologies in action: Composite annotations for biosimulation models. J Biomed Inform2011; 44: 146–154.
39.
ChreyhRWainerG.CD++ repository: an internet based searchable database of DEVS models and their experimental frames. In: Proceedings of the 2009 spring simulation multiconference, San Diego, California, USA, 22–27 March 2009. 159pp. San Diego, CA: Society for Computer Simulation International.
40.
HenkelRWolkenhauerOWaltemathD.Combining computational models, semantic annotations and simulation experiments in a graph database. Database2015; 2015: bau130.
41.
WangSWainerG.Semantic selection for model composition using SAMSaaS. In: Proceedings of the symposium on theory of modeling & simulation: DEVS integrative M&S symposium, Alexandra, Virginia, USA, 12–15 April 2015 pp.25–32. San Diego, CA: Society for Computer Simulation International.
42.
CooperJVikJOWaltemathD. A call for virtual experiments: accelerating the scientific process. Prog Biophys Mol Biol2015; 117: 99–106.
43.
CellierF.Continuous system modeling. Secaucus, NJ, USA: Springer-Verlag New York, Inc.1991.
44.
RybackiSHaackFWolfK. Developing simulation models-from conceptual to executable model and back-an artifact-based workflow approach. In: Proceedings of the 7th international ICST conference on simulation tools and techniques, Lisbon, Portugal, 17–19 March 2014, pp.21–30. Brussels, Belgium: ICST.
45.
ZeiglerB.Theory of modelling and simulation. New York: John Wiley, Wiley-Interscience Publication, 1976.
EwaldRUhrmacherAM.SESSL: A domain-specific language for simulation experiments. ACM Trans Model Comput Simul2014; 24: 11.
48.
ClarkeEGrumbergOPeledD.Model checking.Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1999.
49.
SenKViswanathanMAghaG.On statistical model checking of stochastic systems. In: Proceedings of the 17th international conference on computer aided verification, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK, 6–10 July 2005, pp.266–280. Berlin: Springer.
50.
LuboschikMRybackiSHaackF. Supporting the integrated visual analysis of input parameters and simulation trajectories. Comput Graph2014; 39: 37–47.
51.
FagesFRizkA.On the analysis of numerical data time series in temporal logic. In: Computational methods in systems biology. Berlin: Springer, pp.48–63.
52.
LeyeSHimmelspachJUhrmacherAM.A discussion on experimental model validation. In: 11th international conference on computer modelling and simulation, Cambridge, UK, 25–27 March 2009, pp.161–167. Washington, DC, USA: IEEE.
53.
CourtotMJutyNKnüpferC. Controlled vocabularies and semantics in systems biology. Mol Syst Biol2011; 7: 543.
54.
CarrilloMGóngoraPARosenbluethDA. An overview of existing modeling tools making use of model checking in the analysis of biochemical networks. Front Plant Sci2012; 3: 155.
55.
BrimLČeškaMŠafránekD. Model checking of biological systems. In: Formal methods for dynamical systems. Springer, 2013, pp.63–112.
MalerONickovicD. Monitoring temporal properties of continuous signals. In: Formal techniques, modelling and analysis of timed and fault-tolerant systems. Heidelberg: Springer, 2004, pp.152–166.
58.
LegayADelahayeBBensalemS.Statistical model checking: An overview. In: Runtime verification. Berlin: Springer, pp.122–135.
59.
MazemondetOHubnerRFrahmJ. Quantitative and kinetic profile of Wnt/β-catenin signaling components during human neural progenitor cell differentiation. Cell Mol Biol Lett2011; 16: 515–538.
60.
HaackFLemckeHEwaldR. Spatio-temporal model of endogenous ros and raft-dependent Wnt/ beta-catenin signaling driving cell fate commitment in human neural progenitor cells. PLoS Comput Biol2015; 11: 1–28.
61.
BurrageKBurragePDonovanD. Populations of models, experimental designs and coverage of parameter space by Latin hypercube and orthogonal sampling. Procedia Computer Science2015; 51: 1762–1771.
62.
MazemondetOJohnMLeyeS. Elucidating the sources of β-catenin dynamics in human neural progenitor cell. Plos One2012; 7: e42792.
63.
ClevelandWS. Robust locally weighted regression and smoothing scatterplots. J Am Stat Assoc1979; 74: 829–836.
64.
HimmelspachJUhrmacherAM.Plug’N simulate. In: Proceedings of the 40th annual simulation symposium, Washington, DC, USA, 26–28 March 2007, pp.137–143. Washington, DC: IEEE.
65.
CleversHNusseR. Wnt/β-catenin signaling and disease. Cell2012; 149: 1192–1205.
66.
SakaneHYamamotoHKikuchiA. LRP6 is internalized by Dkk1 to suppress its phosphorylation in the lipid raft and is recycled for reuse. J Cell Sci2010; 123: 360–368.
67.
Lloyd-LewisBFletcherAGDaleTC. Toward a quantitative understanding of the Wnt/β-catenin pathway through simulation and experiment. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Syst Biol Med2013; 5: 391–407.
68.
MiramsGRByrneHMKingJR. A multiple timescale analysis of a mathematical model of the Wnt/ beta-catenin signalling pathway. J Math Biol2010; 60: 131–160.
69.
WarnkeTHelmsTUhrmacherAM.Syntax and semantics of a multi-level modeling language. In: Proceedings of the 3rd ACM SIGSIM conference on principles of advanced discrete simulation, London, UK, 10–12 June 2015. pp.133–144. New York: ACM.
70.
LeeESalicAKrügerR. The roles of apc and axin derived from experimental and theoretical analysis of the wnt pathway. PLoS Biol2003; 1: e10.
71.
PengDSteinigerAHelmsT. Towards composing ML-rules models. In: Proceedings of the 45th winter simulation conference, Washington, DC, USA, 8–11 December 2013. pp.4010–4011. Washington, DC: IEEE.
72.
ÖzhanGSezginEWehnerD. Lypd6 enhances Wnt/β-catenin signaling by promoting Lrp6 phosphorylation in raft plasma membrane domains. Dev Cell2013; 26: 331–345.
73.
HaackFBurrageKRedmerR. Studying the role of lipid rafts on protein receptor bindings with cellular automata. IEEE/ACM Trans Comput Biol Bioinform2013; 10: 760–770.
74.
HannoushRN. Kinetics of Wnt-driven β-catenin stabilization revealed by quantitative and temporal imaging. PloS one2008; 3: e3498.
75.
RharassTLemckeHLantowM. Ca2+-mediated mitochondrial ROS metabolism augments Wnt/β-catenin pathway activation to facilitate cell differentiation. J Bio Chem2014; 289: 27937–27951.
76.
FunatoYMichiueTAsashimaM. The thioredoxin-related redox-regulating protein nucleoredoxin inhibits Wnt–β-catenin signalling through dishevelled. Nat Cell Biol2006; 8: 501–508.
77.
HuckaMFinneyASauroHM. The systems biology markup language (SBML): A medium for representation and exchange of biochemical network models. Bioinformatics2003; 19: 524–531.
