Comparative analysis of intestinal tract models

The human gut is a complex ecosystem occupied by a diverse microbial community. Modulation of this microbiota impacts health and disease. The definitive way to investigate the impact of dietary intervention on the gut microbiota is a human trial. However, human trials are expensive and can be difficult to control; thus, initial screening is desirable. Utilization of a range of in vitro and in vivo models means that useful information can be gathered prior to the necessity for human intervention. This review discusses the benefits and limitations of these approaches.

Calibration and evaluation of individual-based models using Approximate Bayesian Computation

This paper investigates the feasibility of using approximate Bayesian computation (ABC) to calibrate and evaluate complex individual-based models (IBMs). As ABC evolves, various versions are emerging, but here we only explore the most accessible version, rejection-ABC. Rejection-ABC involves running models a large number of times, with parameters drawn randomly from their prior distributions, and then retaining the simulations closest to the observations. Although well-established in some fields, whether ABC will work with ecological IBMs is still uncertain. Rejection-ABC was applied to an existing 14-parameter earthworm energy budget IBM for which the available data consist of body mass growth and cocoon production in four experiments. ABC was able to narrow the posterior distributions of seven parameters, estimating credible intervals for each. ABC’s accepted values produced slightly better fits than literature values do. The accuracy of the analysis was assessed using cross-validation and coverage, currently the best available tests. Of the seven unnarrowed parameters, ABC revealed that three were correlated with other parameters, while the remaining four were found to be not estimable given the data available. It is often desirable to compare models to see whether all component modules are necessary. Here we used ABC model selection to compare the full model with a simplified version which removed the earthworm’s movement and much of the energy budget. We are able to show that inclusion of the energy budget is necessary for a good fit to the data. We show how our methodology can inform future modelling cycles, and briefly discuss how more advanced versions of ABC may be applicable to IBMs. We conclude that ABC has the potential to represent uncertainty in model structure, parameters and predictions, and to embed the often complex process of optimizing an IBM’s structure and parameters within an established statistical framework, thereby making the process more transparent and objective.

A cautionary note on the use of Ornstein Uhlenbeck models in macroevolutionary studies

Phylogenetic comparative methods are increasingly used to give new insights into the dynamics of trait evolution in deep time. For continuous traits the core of these methods is a suite of models that attempt to capture evolutionary patterns by extending the Brownian constant variance model. However, the properties of these models are often poorly understood, which can lead to the misinterpretation of results. Here we focus on one of these models – the Ornstein Uhlenbeck (OU) model. We show that the OU model is frequently incorrectly favoured over simpler models when using Likelihood ratio tests, and that many studies fitting this model use datasets that are small and prone to this problem. We also show that very small amounts of error in datasets can have profound effects on the inferences derived from OU models. Our results suggest that simulating fitted models and comparing with empirical results is critical when fitting OU and other extensions of the Brownian model. We conclude by making recommendations for best practice in fitting OU models in phylogenetic comparative analyses, and for interpreting the parameters of the OU model.