Both methods indicated PDK1 as a sensitive node in the presence of pertuzumab. GSA predicted higher sensitivity to PI3K than LSA. To summarise, most of the parameters identified by LSA in this study represented a subset of GSA derived predictions, but the LSA ranking differed from the GSA ranking. Such differences in the predictions provided by global and local sensitivity methods, as well as the discrepancy between LSA findings presented in different studies, in our opinion, http://www.selleckchem.com/products/Bortezomib.html should not be considered as contradictory, because they originate from

significantly different design and purposes behind local and global types of analysis. Indeed, LSA is normally performed in the proximity of the single solution

identified from the best fitting to a particular dataset, therefore it would be logical to expect that it can help to identify the proteins possessing the most control over the output signal in the particular cell line used for model calibration. For example, LSA of our ErbB2/3 network model could point to the best targets to suppress the pAkt signal in the PE04 NU7441 manufacturer ovarian carcinoma cell line. However, since the model is not fully identifiable, such predictions may not be accurate. In contrast to LSA, GSA works not with a single model solution, but with the whole ensemble of those, generated for N randomly sampled parameter sets. Therefore GSA procedure GBA3 is not intended to find the best targets for inhibition in a particular cell type, but instead it identifies those proteins whose parameters are highly correlated with the output signal of interest in the majority of (but not all) possible network implementations, defined by possible combinations of network parameters. Thus, the GSA of our ErbB2/3 network model points to the proteins, targeting of which is likely to result in a lower pAkt signal in the majority of cells with the same network topology, while the kinetic parameters of individual reactions may differ between the

cells or be uncertain. Because of the differences in technical setup and applicability of LSA and GSA techniques, we suggest that these methods should not be opposed but rather considered as complementary approaches, which, when used together, may allow exploration of a wider range of promising targets and prioritisation for future study. Indeed our GSA procedure predicted that PDK1 could be a promising target to suppress pAkt. In contrast to that conclusion, LSA indicated a very low level of sensitivity to PDK1, both in our study and in Schoeberl et al. (2009) (Schoeberl et al., 2009). Experimental testing of GSA prediction proved that inhibition of PDK1 resulted in a significant suppression of pAkt signal in two cell lines, including PE04, which was used for initial calibration of our model.