Sensitivity Analysis of Enzyme-Substrate-Inhibitor Interaction Based on Nonlinear Dynamic Model

Vasyl Martsenyuk and Aleksandra Kłos-Witkowska

References:

1. M. D. Morris, “Factorial sampling plans for preliminary computational experiments,” Technometrics, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 161-174, May 1991, [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1080/ 00401706.1991.10484804.
2. J. P. Norton, “Selection of Morris trajectories for initial sensitivity analysis,” IFAC Proceedings Volumes, vol. 42, no. 10, pp. 670-674, 2009, 15th IFAC Symposium on System Identification, [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.3182/ 20090706-3-FR- 2004.00111.
3. Q. Ge and M. Menendez, “Extending Morris method for qualitative global sensitivity analysis of models with dependent inputs,” Reliability Engineering System Safety, vol. 162, pp. 28-39, 2017, [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2017.01.010.
4. M. Jaxa-Rozen and J. Kwakkel, “Tree-based ensemble methods for sensitivity analysis of environmental models: A performance comparison with sobol and morris techniques,” Environmental Modelling Software, vol. 107, pp. 245-266, 2018, [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2018. 06.011.
5. V. Nicoulaud-Gouin and et al., “Sensitivity analysis in a radiological impact assessment of a nuclear power plant discharge. a comparison of the morris, spearman and sobol’ approaches,” Journal of Environmental Radioactivity, vol. 242, p. 106770, 2022, [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvrad.2021. 106770.
6. X. Sun, B. Croke, A. Jakeman, and S. Roberts, “Benchmarking active subspace methods of global sensitivity analysis against variance-based sobol’ and morris methods with established test functions,” Environmental Modelling Software, vol. 149, p. 105310, 2022, [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.envsoft.2022.105310.
7. A. Janse van Rensburg, G. van Schoor, and P. van Vuuren, “Stepwise global sensitivity analysis of a physics-based battery model using the morris method and monte carlo experiments,” Journal of Energy Storage, vol. 25, p. 100875, 2019, [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.est.2019.100875.
8. Y. Shen and M. Yarnold, “A novel sensitivity analysis of commercial building hybrid energy-structure performance,” Journal of Building Engineering, vol. 43, p. 102808, 2021, [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2021.102808.
9. D. King and B. Perera, “Morris method of sensitivity analysis applied to assess the importance of input variables on urban water supply yield – a case study,” Journal of Hydrology, vol. 477, pp. 17-32, 2013, [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol. 2012.10.017.
10. E. A. Baker, A. Cappato, S. Todeschini, L. Tamellini, G. Sangalli, A. Reali, and S. Manenti, “Combining the Morris method and multiple error metrics to assess aquifer characteristics and recharge in the lower Ticino Basin, in Italy,” Journal of Hydrology, vol. 614, pp. 128536, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2022. 128536.
11. L. Gatel, C. Lauvernet, N. Carluer, S. Weill, J. Tournebize, and C. Paniconi, “Global evaluation and sensitivity analysis of a physically based flow and reactive transport model on a laboratory experiment,” Environmental Modelling Software, vol. 113, pp. 73-83, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.envsoft. 2018.12.006.
12. C. Wang, M. Peng, and G. Xia, “Sensitivity analysis based on Morris method of passive system performance under ocean conditions,” Annals of Nuclear Energy, vol. 137, pp. 107067, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.anucene.2019.107067.
13. B. P. English and et al., “Ever-fluctuating single enzyme molecules: Michaelis-Menten equation revisited,” Nature Chemical Biology, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 94, Dec. 2005, doi: 10.1038/nchembio759.
14. B. Palsson, “On the dynamics of the irreversible Michaelis-Menten reaction mechanism,” Chemical Engineering Science, vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 447-458, 1987.
15. J. Keener and J. Sneyd, Eds., Mathematical Physiology. Springer New York, 2009, doi: 10.1007/978-0-387-75847-3.
16. S. Schnell, “Validity of the Michaelis-Menten equation - steady-state or reactant stationary assumption: that is the question,” FEBS Journal, vol. 281, no. 2, pp. 464-472, Nov. 2013, doi: 10.1111/febs.12564.
17. W. D. Ristenpart, J. Wan, and H. A. Stone, “Enzymatic reactions in microfluidic devices: Michaelis-Menten kinetics,” Analytical Chemistry, vol. 80, no. 9, pp. 3270-3276, May 2008, doi: 10.1021/ac702469u.
18. V. Martsenyuk, A. Klos-Witkowska, S. Dzyadevych, and A. Sverstiuk, “Nonlinear analytics for electrochemical biosensor design using enzyme aggregates and delayed mass action,” Sensors (Basel), vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 980, Jan. 2022.
19. J. Ren, W. Zhang, and J. Yang, "Morris sensitivity analysis for hydrothermal coupling parameters of embankment dam: A case study," Mathematical Problems in Engineering, vol. 2019, pp. 1-11, Jun. 2019.
20. “FAAI Job Hub – The Future is in Applied Artificial Intelligence 2022-1-PL01-KA220-HED-000088359,” http://faai.ath.edu.pl, [Accessed on Feb. 24, 2023].