Skip to main content

numerical integration - Gillespie Stochastic Simulation Algorithm


The Gillespie SSA is a Monte Carlo stochastic simulation algorithm to find the trajectory of a dynamic system described by a reaction (or interaction) network, e.g. chemical reactions or ecological problems. It was introduced by Dan Gillespie in 1977 (see paper here). It is used in case of small molecular numbers (or species abundance) where numerical integration of the related differential equation system is not appropriate due to hard stochastic effects (i.e. the death of a single individual might make a large impact on the population).


Can you do it with Mathematica? Is it general enough? Is it fast?



Answer



Yes you can. Below is a fairly general, Mathematica-compiled, fast and robust version.


Examples


1. Michaelis-Menten kinetics



Michaelis-Menten kinetics for enzyme-directed substrate conversion. The enzyme (e) converts the susbtrate (s) through an enzyme-substrate complex (c) to the product (p). For comparison, I've included the deterministic ODE system solved by NDSolve.


ClearAll[e, s, c, p, t];
reactions = {e + s -> c, c -> e + s, c -> e + p};
vars = {e, s, c, p};
rates = {1.1, .1, .8};
init = <|e -> 100, s -> 100, c -> 0, p -> 0|>;

det = NDSolveValue[{
e'[t] == .9 c[t] - 1.1 e[t] s[t],
s'[t] == .1 c[t] - 1.1 e[t] s[t],

c'[t] == 1.1 e[t] s[t] - .9 c[t],
p'[t] == .8 c[t],
e[0] == 100, s[0] == 100, c[0] == 0, p[0] == 0}, vars, {t, 0, 10}];
sto = GillespieSSA[reactions, init, rates, {0, 10}];
op = {PlotStyle -> Thick, PlotTheme -> "Scientific"};
Row@{Plot[Evaluate@Through@det@t, {t, 0, 10}, Evaluate@op,
PlotLabel -> "deterministic ODE"], Spacer@10,
Plot[Evaluate@Through@sto@t, {t, 0, 10}, Evaluate@op,
PlotLabel -> "stochastic SSA"]}


Mathematica graphics


2. Lotka-Volterra predator-prey dynamics


Lotka-Volterra dynamics. I omit the conversion to continuous differential equations from now on, leaving it to the "educated reader". x -> Null indicates that the species is removed without producing waste material (at least one that is tracked). Similarly, Null -> x indicates a zero-order reaction where x is generated spontaneously (or is entering from the external environment).


ClearAll[y, x];
reactions = {y -> 2 y, y + x -> 2 x, x -> Null};
vars = {y, x};
rates = {1, .005, .6};
init = <|y -> 50, x -> 100|>;

sto = GillespieSSA[reactions, init, rates, {0, 100}]


Mathematica graphics


3. Circadian cycle


ClearAll[a, p, i];
reactions = {a -> 2 a, a -> a + p, p -> i, a + i -> i, i -> Null};
vars = {a, p, i};
init = <|a -> 100, p -> 100, i -> 100|>;
rates = {1, .08, .6, .01, .4};

sto = GillespieSSA[reactions, init, rates, {0, 400}];


Mathematica graphics


4. Oregonator


The Oregonator is a model of the Belousov-Zhabotinsky reactions. Here I used the resolution argument to speed up evaluation (only every 100th step is stored).


ClearAll[a, b, c];
reactions = {b -> a, a + b -> Null, a -> 2 a + c, 2 a -> Null, c -> b};
vars = {a, b, c};
init = <|a -> 1, b -> 2, c -> 3|>
rates = {2, .1, 104, .016, 26};


sto = GillespieSSA[reactions, init, rates, {0, 4, 100}];

Mathematica graphics


Usage


The function accepts the following arguments:


 GillespieSSA[
{r1, r2, ...}, (* list of elementary reaction steps as Rules *)
<|y1 -> y1[0], y2 -> y2[0], ...|>, (* variables with initial values at t==0 *)
{c1, c2, ...}, (* reaction rate constants, for each reaction *)
<|y1 -> f1, y2 -> f2, ...|>, (* linear in/outflux for each variable;

can be left out, in which case 0 will be used*)
{mint, maxt, res} (* {start time, end time, step resolution};
resolution can be omitted, defaulting to 1 *)
]

It returns an InterpolatingFunction (with InterpolationOrder -> 0) as each variable's solution function, to comply with the result produced by NDSolve. Initial values are taken to be the values at t == mint. The maximal allowed step size (10^7) is hardcoded in iterations, change it for your needs.


Note, that the Gillespie method is stochastic: it will convert continuous reaction rates into discrete-valued reaction propensities. It cannot accept reactions where stoichiometric factors are not integer numbers. Also, it gives a different realization every time it is run (if the random generator is not reseeded) due to its stochastic nature. Moreover, at small molecular/species amounts, stochastic effects could cause extinction and produce different results as in the deterministic, continuous case (NDSolve).


Code


ClearAll[GillespieSSA];
GillespieSSA[res : {__Rule}, in_Association,

rateconst_?VectorQ, influx_Association: <||>,
{mint_?NumberQ, maxt_?NumberQ, dstep_Integer: 1}] := Module[
{vars, reactant, product, balance, propensities, initialValues,
fluxRates, symRates, rep, stepList, iterations = 10^7, step,
compiled, times, rest},

(* Pre-generating a list is much faster than iteratively calling one-by-one. *)
stepList = N@RandomVariate[ExponentialDistribution@1, iterations + 1];

{vars, initialValues} = {Keys@in, Values@in};

{reactant, product} =
Outer[Coefficient[#1, #2] &, #, vars, 1] & /@
Transpose@(List @@@ res);
balance = product - reactant;
propensities =
Inner[Binomial[#2, #1] &, reactant, vars, Times]*
PadRight[rateconst, Length@res, 1];
fluxRates = If[influx === <||>, 0 & /@ vars, vars /. influx];

Block[{count},

rep = Thread[vars -> Table[Indexed[count, i], {i, Length@vars}]];
symRates = propensities /. rep;
compiled = ReleaseHold[
Hold@Compile[{
{init, _Integer, 1}, {flux, _Integer, 1}, {bal, _Integer, 2},
{dtList, _Real, 1}, {min, _Real}, {max, _Real},
{iter, _Integer}, {resol, _Integer}},
Module[{
count = init, rates, i = 1, c = 1, t = min, dt, ff, f, range,
r, fReal = 0. & /@ flux, rateSum, data = Internal`Bag[]},

rates = "SymbolicRates";
rateSum = N@Total@rates;
range = Range@Length@rates;
Internal`StuffBag[data, Internal`Bag[Join[{t}, N@count]]];

While[Total@count > 0. && rateSum > 0. && t <= max && i <= iter,
i++;
dt = dtList[[i]]/rateSum;
t = t + dt;
r = RandomChoice[rates -> range];

(* Fractional part is carried over to minimize undersampling error *)
ff = (flux*dt) + fReal;
f = IntegerPart@ff;
fReal = ff - f;
(* `count` is maintained as an integer not to loose precision. *)
count = Max[0, #] & /@ (count + bal[[r]] + f);
If[Mod[i, resol] == 0, c++;
Internal`StuffBag[data, Internal`Bag[Join[{t}, N@count]]];];
rates = "SymbolicRates";
rateSum = N@Total@rates;

];
If[t < max && i < iter, c++;
Internal`StuffBag[data, Internal`Bag[Join[{max}, N@count]]]];
Table[Internal`BagPart[Internal`BagPart[data, j], All], {j, c}]
],
Parallelization -> True , RuntimeAttributes -> Listable,
RuntimeOptions -> "Speed",
CompilationOptions -> {"InlineExternalDefinitions" -> True,
"InlineCompiledFunctions" -> True}
] /. "SymbolicRates" -> symRates];


{times, rest} = {First@#, Rest@#} &@Transpose@compiled[
Round@initialValues, N@fluxRates, Round@balance,
N@stepList, N@mint, N@maxt, Round@iterations, dstep];
Interpolation[Transpose@{times, #}, InterpolationOrder -> 0] & /@ rest
]];

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

plotting - Plot 4D data with color as 4th dimension

I have a list of 4D data (x position, y position, amplitude, wavelength). I want to plot x, y, and amplitude on a 3D plot and have the color of the points correspond to the wavelength. I have seen many examples using functions to define color but my wavelength cannot be expressed by an analytic function. Is there a simple way to do this? Answer Here a another possible way to visualize 4D data: data = Flatten[Table[{x, y, x^2 + y^2, Sin[x - y]}, {x, -Pi, Pi,Pi/10}, {y,-Pi,Pi, Pi/10}], 1]; You can use the function Point along with VertexColors . Now the points are places using the first three elements and the color is determined by the fourth. In this case I used Hue, but you can use whatever you prefer. Graphics3D[ Point[data[[All, 1 ;; 3]], VertexColors -> Hue /@ data[[All, 4]]], Axes -> True, BoxRatios -> {1, 1, 1/GoldenRatio}]

plotting - Filling between two spheres in SphericalPlot3D

Manipulate[ SphericalPlot3D[{1, 2 - n}, {θ, 0, Pi}, {ϕ, 0, 1.5 Pi}, Mesh -> None, PlotPoints -> 15, PlotRange -> {-2.2, 2.2}], {n, 0, 1}] I cant' seem to be able to make a filling between two spheres. I've already tried the obvious Filling -> {1 -> {2}} but Mathematica doesn't seem to like that option. Is there any easy way around this or ... Answer There is no built-in filling in SphericalPlot3D . One option is to use ParametricPlot3D to draw the surfaces between the two shells: Manipulate[ Show[SphericalPlot3D[{1, 2 - n}, {θ, 0, Pi}, {ϕ, 0, 1.5 Pi}, PlotPoints -> 15, PlotRange -> {-2.2, 2.2}], ParametricPlot3D[{ r {Sin[t] Cos[1.5 Pi], Sin[t] Sin[1.5 Pi], Cos[t]}, r {Sin[t] Cos[0 Pi], Sin[t] Sin[0 Pi], Cos[t]}}, {r, 1, 2 - n}, {t, 0, Pi}, PlotStyle -> Yellow, Mesh -> {2, 15}]], {n, 0, 1}]

plotting - Mathematica: 3D plot based on combined 2D graphs

I have several sigmoidal fits to 3 different datasets, with mean fit predictions plus the 95% confidence limits (not symmetrical around the mean) and the actual data. I would now like to show these different 2D plots projected in 3D as in but then using proper perspective. In the link here they give some solutions to combine the plots using isometric perspective, but I would like to use proper 3 point perspective. Any thoughts? Also any way to show the mean points per time point for each series plus or minus the standard error on the mean would be cool too, either using points+vertical bars, or using spheres plus tubes. Below are some test data and the fit function I am using. Note that I am working on a logit(proportion) scale and that the final vertical scale is Log10(percentage). (* some test data *) data = Table[Null, {i, 4}]; data[[1]] = {{1, -5.8}, {2, -5.4}, {3, -0.8}, {4, -0.2}, {5, 4.6}, {1, -6.4}, {2, -5.6}, {3, -0.7}, {4, 0.04}, {5, 1.0}, {1, -6.8}, {2, -4.7}, {3, -1....