MAPK / SCIENTIFIC TOOLS & AGENT SYSTEMS

Same mutation. Different responses.
What can a simplified model explain?

A mechanistic simulation and tool-validation project exploring cell-to-cell variation in ERK suppression.

In progress ? Planning and feasibility investigation, according to the repository. Components below describe the intended system, not completed results.

Role

Independent project

Focus

Simulation ? validation ? agent harness

Status

Planning & feasibility

The mutation is shared.
The modeled cells are not identical.

Under the same KRAS mutation and drug conditions, how much variation in simulated ERK suppression can arise from differences in signaling protein abundance?

KRAS context
01 / CONTROL

Hold conditions fixed

Compare the same mutation and treatment scenario across a shared virtual-cell population.

02 / VARIATION

Vary model inputs

Sample documented protein totals and effective parameters while preserving state constraints.

03 / RESPONSE

Compare suppression

Analyze modeled ERK-response distributions and sensitivity to the sampled inputs.

Conceptual illustrations only. No experimental or simulated result is presented above.

Build the tools first.
Then evaluate the agent using them.

The simulator is designed to run independently of a trained molecular model. Experimental lookup and model predictions will share a source-labeled interface.

Molecular activityExperimental lookup
RF baseline / GCN comparison
→
MAPK simulatorActivity-to-input mapping
ODE ? virtual-cell population
→
Agent harnessFrozen tools & candidates
Budgeted search and evaluation
Molecular modeling

Planned biochemical IC50 data audit using BindingDB and ChEMBL. Compare fingerprint + Random Forest against GCN on the same frozen scaffold split.

Mechanistic simulation

Planned scipy implementation of the Kholodenko2000 simplified cascade, checked against an independently executed reference model.

Explicit sourcesEvery molecular result will identify lookup, RF, or GCN provenance. Lookup-mode tool evaluation will remain separate from predictive-model evaluation.

Useful outputs need
visible assumptions and failure checks.

WHAT COULD GO WRONG
01

Invalid structures or
unsupported predictions.

02

Numerical failures or
invalid state constraints.

03

Agent claims beyond
the available evidence.

PLANNED CHECKS
MOLECULAR INPUT

Parsing rejection and applicability warnings.

SIMULATION

Reference trajectories and state-bound checks.

AGENT OUTPUT

Evidence checks and injected-failure evaluation.

Does the agent add value?

Compare random selection, pIC50 sorting, simple budgeted search, and a ReAct agent. Use exhaustive execution of the same frozen tools as the internal ranking reference.

Top-5 overlapObjective gapTool callsRuntime & API costFailure handling

If simple pIC50 sorting solves the task, report that result. The ranking reference tests tool use within the simulator, not real-world drug efficacy.

A research hypothesis.
An engineering project in progress.

Current repository state

The README reports a React frontend scaffold and empty backend implementation files. Data feasibility, reference execution, and tool implementations are planned deliverables.

Interpretation boundary

ERK suppression is a model response, not cell death or clinical benefit. The inhibition mapping is phenomenological, and population assumptions constrain every result.

Initial scopeODE parameter ensembles, molecular baselines, validation, and a fixed candidate-pool harness. Gillespie, molecular generation, quantum computation, and patient-specific prediction are outside the initial MVP.