Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Advertisement

npj Systems Biology and Applications
  • View all journals
  • Search
  • My Account Login
  • Content Explore content
  • About the journal
  • Publish with us
  • Sign up for alerts
  • RSS feed
  1. nature
  2. npj systems biology and applications
  3. perspectives
  4. article
From FAIR to CURE: guidelines for computational models of biological systems
Download PDF
Download PDF
  • Perspective
  • Open access
  • Published: 27 March 2026

From FAIR to CURE: guidelines for computational models of biological systems

  • Herbert M. Sauro1,2,
  • Eran Agmon3,
  • Michael L. Blinov3,
  • John H. Gennari4,
  • Joseph L. Hellerstein1,2,
  • Adel Heydarabadipour1,
  • Bartholomew E. Jardine1,
  • Elebeoba May5,
  • David P. Nickerson6,
  • Lucian P. Smith1,
  • Gary D. Bader7,
  • Frank T. Bergmann8,
  • Patrick M. Boyle1,2,9,10,
  • Andreas Dräger11,
  • James R. Faeder12,
  • Song Feng13,
  • Juliana Freire14,
  • Fabian Fröhlich15,
  • James A. Glazier16,
  • Thomas E. Gorochowski17,
  • Tomas Helikar18,
  • Henning Hermjakob19,
  • Stefan Hoops20,
  • Peter Hunter6,
  • Princess I. Imoukhuede1,
  • Sarah M. Keating21,
  • Matthias König22,
  • Reinhard Laubenbacher23,
  • Leslie M. Loew3,
  • Carlos F. Lopez24,
  • William W. Lytton1,25,26,
  • Rahuman S. Malik-Sheriff19,
  • Andrew McCulloch27,
  • Pedro Mendes3,
  • Lealem Mulugeta28,29,
  • Chris J. Myers30,
  • Jerry G. Myers Jr31,
  • Anna Niarakis32,33,
  • David D. van Niekerk34,
  • Brett G. Olivier35,
  • Alexander A. Patrie3,
  • Ellen M. Quardokus16,
  • Nicole Radde36,
  • Johann M. Rohwer34,
  • Sven Sahle8,
  • James C. Schaff3,
  • Falk Schreiber37,38,
  • T. J. Sego23,
  • Janis Shin1,
  • Jacky L. Snoep34,
  • Rajanikanth Vadigepalli39,
  • H. Steven Wiley40,
  • Dagmar Waltemath41 &
  • …
  • Ion I. Moraru3 

npj Systems Biology and Applications , Article number:  (2026) Cite this article

  • 1707 Accesses

  • 8 Citations

  • 3 Altmetric

  • Metrics details

We are providing an unedited version of this manuscript to give early access to its findings. Before final publication, the manuscript will undergo further editing. Please note there may be errors present which affect the content, and all legal disclaimers apply.

Subjects

  • Computational biology and bioinformatics
  • Standardization
  • Systems biology

Abstract

Guidelines for managing scientific data have been established under the FAIR principles, requiring that data be Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable. In many scientific disciplines, especially computational biology, both data and models are key to progress. For this reason, and recognizing that such models are a very special type of “data”, we argue that computational models, especially mechanistic models prevalent in medicine, physiology and systems biology, deserve a complementary set of guidelines. We propose the CURE principles, emphasizing that models should be Credible, Understandable, Reproducible, and Extensible. We delve into each principle, discussing verification, validation, and uncertainty quantification for model credibility; the clarity of model descriptions and annotations for understandability; adherence to standards and open science practices for reproducibility; and the use of open standards and modular code for extensibility and reuse. We outline recommended and baseline requirements for each aspect of CURE, aiming to enhance the impact and trustworthiness of computational models, particularly in biomedical applications where credibility is paramount. Our perspective underscores the need for a more disciplined approach to modeling, aligning with emerging trends such as Digital Twins and emphasizing the importance of data and modeling standards for interoperability and reuse. Finally, we emphasize that given the non-trivial effort required to implement the guidelines, the community should strive to automate as many of the guidelines as possible.

Similar content being viewed by others

Making Biomedical Research Software FAIR: Actionable Step-by-step Guidelines with a User-support Tool

Article Open access 23 August 2023

Machine actionable metadata models

Article Open access 30 September 2022

Developing a standardized but extendable framework to increase the findability of infectious disease datasets

Article Open access 23 February 2023

Data availability

No datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.

References

  1. Wilkinson, M. D. et al. The FAIR guiding principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Sci. Data 3, 1–9 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Ravi, N. et al. FAIR principles for AI models with a practical application for accelerated high energy diffraction microscopy. Sci. Data 9, 657 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Shiferaw, K. B., Balaur, I., Welter, D., Waltemath, D. & Zeleke, A. A. Califrame: a proposed method of calibrating reporting guidelines with fair principles to foster reproducibility of ai research in medicine. JAMIA Open 7, ooae105 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Juarez, M. G., Botti, V. J. & Giret, A. S. Digital twins: review and challenges. J. Comput. Inf. Sci. Eng. 21, 030802 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  5. Laubenbacher, R. et al. Toward mechanistic medical digital twins: some use cases in immunology. Front. Digit. Health 6, 1349595 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  6. Michael, C. T., Almohri, S. A., Linderman, J. J. & Kirschner, D. E. A framework for multi-scale intervention modeling: virtual cohorts, virtual clinical trials, and model-to-model comparisons. Front. Syst. Biol. 3, 1283341 (2023).

  7. Dill, K. A. & MacCallum, J. L. The protein-folding problem, 50 years on. Science 338, 1042–1046 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  8. McCammon, J. A., Gelin, B. R. & Karplus, M. Dynamics of folded proteins. nature 267, 585–590 (1977).

    Google Scholar 

  9. Laubenbacher, R. et al. Building digital twins of the human immune system: toward a roadmap. npj Digit. Med. 5, 64 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  10. Niarakis, A. et al. Immune digital twins for complex human pathologies: applications, limitations, and challenges. npj Syst. Biol. Appl. 10, 141 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  11. Karr, J. R. et al. A whole-cell computational model predicts phenotype from genotype. Cell 150, 389–401 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Macklin, D. N., Ruggero, N. A. & Covert, M. W. The future of whole-cell modeling. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 28, 111–115 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  13. Waltemath, D. et al. Toward community standards and software for whole-cell modeling. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 63, 2007–2014 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  14. Waltemath, D. & Wolkenhauer, O. How modeling standards, software, and initiatives support reproducibility in systems biology and systems medicine. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 63, 1999–2006 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  15. Tiwari, K. et al. Reproducibility in systems biology modelling. Mol. Syst. Biol. 17, e9982 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  16. Porubsky, V. L. et al. Best practices for making reproducible biochemical models. Cell Syst. 11, 109–120 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  17. Shin, J., Porubsky, V., Carothers, J. & Sauro, H. M. Standards, dissemination, and best practices in systems biology. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 81, 102922 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  18. Vieira, L. S. & Laubenbacher, R. C. Computational models in systems biology: standards, dissemination, and best practices. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 75, 102702 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  19. Hucka, M. et al. The systems biology markup language (SBML): a medium for representation and exchange of biochemical network models. Bioinformatics 19, 524–531 (2003).

    Google Scholar 

  20. Keating, S. M. et al. SBML Level 3: an extensible format for the exchange and reuse of biological models. Mol. Syst. Biol. 16, e9110 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  21. Clerx, M. et al. CellML 2.0. J. Integr. Bioinform. 17, 20200021 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  22. Gleeson, P. et al. NeuroML: a language for describing data driven models of neurons and networks with a high degree of biological detail. PLoS Comput. Biol. 6, e1000815 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  23. Gu, C., Kim, G. B., Kim, W. J., Kim, H. U. & Lee, S. Y. Current status and applications of genome-scale metabolic models. Genome Biol. 20, 1–18 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  24. Malik-Sheriff, R. S. et al. BioModels-15 years of sharing computational models in life science. Nucleic Acids Res. 48, D407–D415 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  25. King, Z. A. et al. BiGG models: A platform for integrating, standardizing and sharing genome-scale models. Nucleic Acids Res. 44, D515–D522 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  26. Arkin, A. P. et al. KBase: the united states department of energy systems biology knowledgebase. Nat. Biotechnol. 36, 566–569 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  27. Blinov, M. L. et al. Practical resources for enhancing the reproducibility of mechanistic modeling in systems biology. Curr. Opin. Syst. Biol. 27, 100350 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  28. Porubsky, V., Smith, L. & Sauro, H. M. Publishing reproducible dynamic kinetic models. Brief. Bioinform. 22, bbaa152 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  29. Erdem, C. et al. A scalable, open-source implementation of a large-scale mechanistic model for single cell proliferation and death signaling. Nat. Commun. 13, 3555 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  30. Chaouiya, C. et al. SBML Qualitative Models: a model representation format and infrastructure to foster interactions between qualitative modelling formalisms and tools. BMC Syst. Biol. 7, 135 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  31. Niarakis, A. et al. Setting the basis of best practices and standards for curation and annotation of logical models in biology-highlights of the [bc]2 2019 colomoto/sysmod workshop. Brief. Bioinform. 22, 1848–1859 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  32. Blais, E. M., Chavali, A. K. & Papin, J. A. Linking genome-scale metabolic modeling and genome annotation. in Systems Metabolic Engineering: Methods and Protocols (eds. Kim, H. U.) 985, 61–83 (Humana Press, 2013).

  33. Passi, A. et al. Genome-scale metabolic modeling enables in-depth understanding of big data. Metabolites 12, 14 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  34. Neal, M. L. et al. Harmonizing semantic annotations for computational models in biology. Brief. Bioinform. 20, 540–550 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  35. Novère, N. L. et al. Minimum information requested in the annotation of biochemical models (miriam). Nat. Biotechnol. 23, 1509–1515 (2005).

    Google Scholar 

  36. Neal, M. L., Galdzicki, M., Gallimore, J. & Sauro, H. M. A C library for retrieving specific reactions from the biomodels database. Bioinformatics 30, 129–130 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  37. Größler, A. & Milling, P. Inductive and deductive system dynamics modeling. In The 2007 International Conference of the System Dynamics Society (2007).

  38. Ingalls, B. P. Mathematical modeling in systems biology: an introduction (MIT press, 255 Main Street, NE18. Floor 9. Cambridge, MA 02142, 2013).

  39. Sauro, H. M. Systems biology: introduction to pathway modeling (Ambrosius Publishing, Seattle, 2020).

  40. Kim, O. D., Rocha, M. & Maia, P. A review of dynamic modeling approaches and their application in computational strain optimization for metabolic engineering. Front. Microbiol. 9, 378885 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  41. Peters, M., Eicher, J. J., Van Niekerk, D. D., Waltemath, D. & Snoep, J. L. The jws online simulation database. Bioinformatics 33, 1589–1590 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  42. McDougal, R. A. et al. Twenty years of ModelDB and beyond: building essential modeling tools for the future of neuroscience. J. Comput. Neurosci. 42, 1–10 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  43. Choi, J.-S. & Waxman, S. G. Physiological interactions between nav1. 7 and nav1. 8 sodium channels: a computer simulation study. J. Neurophysiol. 106, 3173–3184 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  44. Lopez, C. F., Muhlich, J. L., Bachman, J. A. & Sorger, P. K. Programming biological models in python using pysb. Mol. Syst. Biol. 9, 646 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  45. Brandl, G. Sphinx documentation. http://sphinx-doc.org/sphinx.pdf (2021).

  46. Plank, G. et al. The opencarp simulation environment for cardiac electrophysiology. Comput. Methods Prog. Biomed. 208, 106223 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  47. Britten, R. D. et al. Fieldml, a proposed open standard for the physiome project for mathematical model representation. Med. Biol. Eng. Comput. 51, 1191–1207 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  48. Schaff, J. C. et al. SBML level 3 package: spatial processes, version 1, release 1. J. Integr. Bioinform. 20, 20220054 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  49. Niarakis, A. et al. Addressing barriers in comprehensiveness, accessibility, reusability, interoperability and reproducibility of computational models in systems biology. Brief. Bioinform. 23, bbac212 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  50. Yilmaz, L. & Liu, B. Model credibility revisited: concepts and considerations for appropriate trust. J. Simul. 16, 312–325 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  51. Tatka, L. T., Smith, L. P., Hellerstein, J. L. & Sauro, H. M. Adapting modeling and simulation credibility standards to computational systems biology. J. Transl. Med. 21, 501 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  52. Schlesinger, S. Terminology for model credibility. Simulation 32, 103–104 (1979).

    Google Scholar 

  53. Erdemir, A. et al. Credible practice of modeling and simulation in healthcare: ten rules from a multidisciplinary perspective. J. Transl. Med. 18, 369 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  54. Musuamba, F., Skottheim Rusten, I., Lesage, R. et al. Scientific and regulatory evaluation of mechanistic in silico drug and disease models in drug development: building model credibility. CPT Pharmacomet. Syst. Pharmacol. 10, 804–825 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  55. Vadigepalli, R. et al. A rubric for assessing conformance to the ten rules for credible practice of modeling and simulation in healthcare. medRxiv 2024–10 (2024).

  56. Thacker, B. et al. Concepts of model verification and validation (No. LA-14167). Los Alamos National Lab., Los Alamos, NM, USA https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/835920 (2004).

  57. Council, N. R. et al. Assessing the reliability of complex models: mathematical and statistical foundations of verification, validation, and uncertainty quantification (National Academies Press, 2012).

  58. Bergmann, F. T. & Sauro, H. M. Comparing simulation results of SBML capable simulators. Bioinformatics 24, 1963–1965 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  59. Hucka, M., Independent, A. F., He, E. & Keating, S. SBML test suite. Nat. Methods (2022).

  60. Hellerstein, J. L., Gu, S., Choi, K. & Sauro, H. M. Recent advances in biomedical simulations: a manifesto for model engineering. F1000Research 8, 261 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  61. Mendes, P. & Kell, D. Non-linear optimization of biochemical pathways: applications to metabolic engineering and parameter estimation. Bioinformatics 14, 869–883 (1998).

    Google Scholar 

  62. Marino, S., Hogue, I. B., Ray, C. J. & Kirschner, D. E. A methodology for performing global uncertainty and sensitivity analysis in systems biology. J. Theor. Biol. 254, 178–196 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  63. Ashyraliyev, M., Fomekong-Nanfack, Y., Kaandorp, J. A. & Blom, J. G. Systems biology: parameter estimation for biochemical models. FEBS J. 276, 886–902 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  64. Dräger, A. et al. Modeling metabolic networks in C. glutamicum: a comparison of rate laws in combination with various parameter optimization strategies. BMC Syst. Biol. 3, 5 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  65. Kirk, P., Thorne, T. & Stumpf, M. P. Model selection in systems and synthetic biology. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 24, 767–774 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  66. Liepe, J. et al. A framework for parameter estimation and model selection from experimental data in systems biology using approximate bayesian computation. Nat. Protoc. 9, 439–456 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  67. Gábor, A. & Banga, J. R. Robust and efficient parameter estimation in dynamic models of biological systems. BMC Syst. Biol. 9, 1–25 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  68. Mitra, E. D. & Hlavacek, W. S. Parameter estimation and uncertainty quantification for systems biology models. Curr. Opin. Syst. Biol. 18, 9–18 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  69. Read, M. N., Alden, K., Timmis, J. & Andrews, P. S. Strategies for calibrating models of biology. Brief. Bioinforma. 21, 24–35 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  70. Wieland, F.-G., Hauber, A. L., Rosenblatt, M., Tönsing, C. & Timmer, J. On structural and practical identifiability. Curr. Opin. Syst. Biol. 25, 60–69 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  71. Colebank, M. J. et al. Guidelines for mechanistic modeling and analysis in cardiovascular research. Am. J. Physiol. Heart Circ. Physiol. 327, H473–H503 (2024).

  72. Villaverde, A. F., Pathirana, D., Fröhlich, F., Hasenauer, J. & Banga, J. R. A protocol for dynamic model calibration. Brief. Bioinform. 23, bbab387 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  73. Touré, V., Flobak, Å, Niarakis, A., Vercruysse, S. & Kuiper, M. The status of causality in biological databases: data resources and data retrieval possibilities to support logical modeling. Brief. Bioinform. 22, bbaa390 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  74. Hall, B. A. & Niarakis, A. Data integration in logic-based models of biological mechanisms. Curr. Opin. Syst. Biol. 28, 100386 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  75. Viceconti, M. et al. In silico trials: verification, validation and uncertainty quantification of predictive models used in the regulatory evaluation of biomedical products. Methods 185, 120–127 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  76. Booker, J. M. & Ross, T. J. An evolution of uncertainty assessment and quantification. Sci. Iran. 18, 669–676 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  77. Shaikh, B. et al. BioSimulators: a central registry of simulation engines and services for recommending specific tools. Nucleic Acids Res. 50, W108–W114 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  78. unittest - unit testing framework. https://docs.python.org/3/library/unittest.html.

  79. Bartley, B. et al. Building an open representation for biological protocols. ACM J. Emerg. Technol. Comput. Syst. 19, 1–21 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  80. Hoops, S. et al. COPASI—a complex pathway simulator. Bioinformatics 22, 3067–3074 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  81. Lieven, C. et al. MEMOTE for standardized genome-scale metabolic model testing. Nat. Biotechnol. 38, 272–276 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  82. Fried, E. I. Theories and models: What they are, what they are for, and what they are about. Psychol. Inq. 31, 336–344 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  83. Regt, D. & W, H. Understanding scientific understanding (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2017).

  84. Nicolis, G. & Prigogine, I. Exploring complexity: an introduction (1989).

  85. Le Novère, N. Model storage, exchange and integration. BMC Neurosci. 7, 1–9 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  86. Courtot, M. et al. Controlled vocabularies and semantics in systems biology. Mol. Syst. Biol. 7, 543 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  87. Carey, M. A., Dräger, A., Beber, M. E., Papin, J. A. & Yurkovich, J. T. Community standards to facilitate development and address challenges in metabolic modeling. Mol. Syst. Biol. 16, e9235 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  88. Zhukova, A., Waltemath, D., Juty, N., Laibe, C. & Le Novère, N. Kinetic simulation algorithm ontology. Nature Precedings 1–1 (2011).

  89. Kholodenko, B. N. Cell-signalling dynamics in time and space. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 7, 165–176 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  90. Reijenga, K. A. et al. Yeast glycolytic oscillations that are not controlled by a single oscillophore: a new definition of oscillophore strength. J. Theor. Biol. 232, 385–398 (2005).

    Google Scholar 

  91. Csete, M. E. & Doyle, J. C. Reverse engineering of biological complexity. Science 295, 1664–1669 (2002).

    Google Scholar 

  92. Andrews, S. S., Wiley, H. S. & Sauro, H. M. Design patterns of biological cells. BioEssays 2300188 (2024).

  93. Baker, M. 1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility. Nature 533, 452–454 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  94. Plesser, H. E. Reproducibility vs. replicability: a brief history of a confused terminology. Front. Neuroinform. 11, 76 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  95. Mendes, P. Reproducible research using biomodels. Bull. Math. Biol. 80, 3081–3087 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  96. Höpfl, S., Pleiss, J. & Radde, N. E. Bayesian estimation reveals that reproducible models in systems biology get more citations. Sci. Rep. 13, 2695 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  97. Coveney, P. V., Groen, D. & Hoekstra, A. G. Reliability and reproducibility in computational science: implementing validation, verification and uncertainty quantification in silico. Philos. Trans. A Math Phys. Eng. Sci. 79, 20200409 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  98. Moraru, I. I. et al. Virtual cell modelling and simulation software environment. IET Syst. Biol. 2, 352–362 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  99. Choi, K. et al. Tellurium: an extensible python-based modeling environment for systems and synthetic biology. Biosystems 171, 74–79 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  100. Medley, J. K. et al. Tellurium notebooks-an environment for reproducible dynamical modeling in systems biology. PLoS Comput. Biol. 14, e1006220 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  101. Shichkova, P. et al. Breakdown and repair of metabolism in the aging brain. Front. Sci. 3, 1441297 (2025).

    Google Scholar 

  102. Neal, M. L. et al. A reappraisal of how to build modular, reusable models of biological systems. PLoS Comput. Biol. 10, e1003849 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  103. Smith, L. P., Bergmann, F. T., Chandran, D. & Sauro, H. M. Antimony: a modular model definition language. Bioinformatics 25, 2452–2454 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  104. Mattsson, S. E., Elmqvist, H. & Otter, M. Physical system modeling with modelica. Control Eng. Pract. 6, 501–510 (1998).

    Google Scholar 

  105. Dabney, J. B. & Harman, T. L. Mastering simulink, vol. 230 (Pearson/Prentice Hall Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, 2004).

  106. Food and Drug Administration. Assessing the credibility of computational modeling and simulation in medical device submissions. https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/assessing-credibility-computational-modeling-and-simulation-medical-device-submissions (2021).

  107. Verma, A., Antony, A. N., Ogunnaike, B. A., Hoek, J. B. & Vadigepalli, R. Causality analysis and cell network modeling of spatial calcium signaling patterns in liver lobules. Front. Physiol. 9, 1377 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  108. Gee, M. M., Lenhoff, A. M., Schwaber, J. S., Ogunnaike, B. A. & Vadigepalli, R. Closed-loop modeling of central and intrinsic cardiac nervous system circuits underlying cardiovascular control. AIChE J. 69, e18033 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  109. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine. Foundational research gaps and future directions for digital twins. https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/26894/foundational-research-gaps-and-future-directions-for-digital-twins (2023).

  110. Bhagirath, P., Strocchi, M., Bishop, M. J., Boyle, P. M. & Plank, G. From bits to bedside: Entering the age of digital twins in cardiac electrophysiology. Europace 26, euae295 (2024).

  111. Karr, J. et al. Model integration in computational biology: the role of reproducibility, credibility and utility. front. Syst. Biol. 2, 822606 (2022).

  112. Schmiester, L. et al. Petab-interoperable specification of parameter estimation problems in systems biology. PLoS Comput. Biol. 17, e1008646 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  113. Novère, N. L. et al. The systems biology graphical notation. Nat. Biotechnol. 27, 735–741 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  114. Gauges, R., Rost, U., Sahle, S. & Wegner, K. A model diagram layout extension for sbml. Bioinformatics 22, 1879–1885 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  115. Bergmann, F. T., Keating, S. M., Gauges, R., Sahle, S. & Wengler, K. Sbml level 3 package: render, version 1, release 1. J. Integr. Bioinform. 15, 20170078 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by NIH Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering award P41 EB023912 through HMS at the Center for Reproducible Biomedical Modeling (https://reproduciblebiomodels.org/). The content expressed here is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health, or the University of Washington. H.M.S. wishes to thank Eric Johnson Chavarria for suggesting the CURE acronym at the 2023 IMAG meeting in Bethesda, MD. H.M.S. also wishes to thank Hunter Robbins for assistance in collating the author names and addresses. T.E.G. was supported by a Royal Society University Research Fellowship (URF\R\221008) and the UKRI-BBSRC Engineering Biology Mission Award CYBER (BB/Y007638/1). S.F. was supported by the Predictive Phenomics Initiative under the Laboratory Directed Research and Development Program at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, operated by Battelle for the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract No. DE-AC05-76RL01830. J.F. was supported by DARPA through the Automating Scientific Knowledge Extraction and Modeling (ASKEM) program, Agreement No. HR0011262087; NSF awards IIS-2106888, CMMI-2146306, and OAC-2411221. The views, opinions, and findings expressed are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as representing the official views or policies of the Department of Defense, the U.S. Government, or NSF. M.K. was supported by the BMBF within ATLAS by grant number 031L0304B and by the German Research Foundation (DFG) within QuaLiPerF by grant number 436883643 and by grant number 465194077 (Priority Programme SPP 2311, Subproject SimLivA). H.M.S. acknowledges research reported in this publication was supported by NIBIB of the National Institutes of Health under award number NIH grant number P41EB023912. R.L. acknowledges funding from the following awards: NIH 1 R01 HL169974-01, U.S. DoD DARPA HR00112220038, NIH 1 R011AI135128-01, NIH 1 R01 HL169974-01. R.V. acknowledges funding from the following awards: National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism R01 AA018873, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute R01 HL161696. The funding sponsors had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, and in the decision to publish the results. N.R. was funded by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) under Germany's Excellence Strategy - EXC 2075 – 390740016. G.D.B acknowledges work was supported by NRNB (U.S. National Institutes of Health, National Center for Research Resources grant number P41 GM103504). J.H.G acknowledges research reported in this publication was supported by NIBIB of the National Institutes of Health under award number NIH grant number P41EB023912. L.M.L acknowledges work was supported by NIH grant R24 GM137787 from the National Institute of General Medical Sciences. J.L.S acknowledges funding from the following award: DST/NRF SARCHI-82813. D.v.N. acknowledges funding from the following award: DST/NRF SRUG2204173612. I.I.M. acknowledges research reported in this publication was supported by NIBIB of the National Institutes of Health under award number NIH grant number P41EB023912 and by NIGMS of the National Institutes of Health under award number NIH grant number R24GM137787 P.M. acknowledges work was supported by NIH grant R24 GM137787 from the National Institute of General Medical Sciences. F.F. acknowledges support by the Francis Crick Institute, which receives its core funding from Cancer Research UK (CC2242), the UK Medical Research Council (CC2242), and the Wellcome Trust (CC2242). J.R.F acknowledges support from NIH grants P41GM10371 and R01GM115805. T.J.S. acknowledges funding from NSF grant 2000281. H.S.W. acknowledges support from NIH Grant 5U01-CA227544. J.M.R. acknowledges funding from the following award: NRF grant number SRUG2204295377. F.S. acknowledges funding from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG), under Germany’s Excellence Strategy--EXC 2117--422037984 and DFG project ID 251654672--TRR 161. D.W. acknowledges funding from the European Open Science Cloud (EOSC) Future program. M.L.B. acknowledges funding from NIH grants R24 GM137787 from the National Institute of General Medical Sciences and P41 EB023912 from the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Bioengineering, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA

    Herbert M. Sauro, Joseph L. Hellerstein, Adel Heydarabadipour, Bartholomew E. Jardine, Lucian P. Smith, Patrick M. Boyle, Princess I. Imoukhuede, William W. Lytton & Janis Shin

  2. eScience Institute, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA

    Herbert M. Sauro, Joseph L. Hellerstein & Patrick M. Boyle

  3. Center for Cell Analysis and Modeling, UConn Health, Farmington, CT, USA

    Eran Agmon, Michael L. Blinov, Leslie M. Loew, Pedro Mendes, Alexander A. Patrie, James C. Schaff & Ion I. Moraru

  4. Department of Biomedical Informatics & Medical Education, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA

    John H. Gennari

  5. Wisconsin Institute for Discovery, University of Wisconsin–Madison, Madison, WI, USA

    Elebeoba May

  6. Auckland Bioengineering Institute, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand

    David P. Nickerson & Peter Hunter

  7. The Donnelly Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

    Gary D. Bader

  8. BioQUANT, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany

    Frank T. Bergmann & Sven Sahle

  9. Center for Cardiovascular Biology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA

    Patrick M. Boyle

  10. Institute for Stem Cell and Regenerative Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA

    Patrick M. Boyle

  11. Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Data Analytics and Bioinformatics, Halle, Germany

    Andreas Dräger

  12. Department of Computational and Systems Biology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

    James R. Faeder

  13. Biological Sciences Division, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA, USA

    Song Feng

  14. Department of Computer Science and Center for Data Science, New York University, New York, NY, USA

    Juliana Freire

  15. Dynamics of Living Systems Laboratory, The Francis Crick Institute, London, UK

    Fabian Fröhlich

  16. Intelligent Systems Engineering and Biocomplexity Institute, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA

    James A. Glazier & Ellen M. Quardokus

  17. School of Biological Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK

    Thomas E. Gorochowski

  18. Department of Biochemistry, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE, USA

    Tomas Helikar

  19. European Molecular Biology Laboratory, European Bioinformatics Institute (EMBL-EBI), Hinxton, Cambridgeshire, UK

    Henning Hermjakob & Rahuman S. Malik-Sheriff

  20. Biocomplexity Institute, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA

    Stefan Hoops

  21. Advanced Research Computing Centre, University College London, London, UK

    Sarah M. Keating

  22. Faculty of Life Science, Institute for Biology, Systems Medicine of Liver, Humboldt-University Berlin, Berlin, Germany

    Matthias König

  23. Department of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA

    Reinhard Laubenbacher & T. J. Sego

  24. Multiscale Modeling Group, Altos Labs, Redwood City, CA, USA

    Carlos F. Lopez

  25. Departments of Physiology & Pharmacology, Neurology, Downstate Health Science University, Brooklyn, NY, USA

    William W. Lytton

  26. Department of Neurology, Kings County Hospital, Brooklyn, NY, USA

    William W. Lytton

  27. Departments of Bioengineering and Medicine, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA

    Andrew McCulloch

  28. InSilico Labs LLC, Houston, TX, USA

    Lealem Mulugeta

  29. Medalist Performance, Houston, TX, USA

    Lealem Mulugeta

  30. Department of Electrical, Computer, and Energy Engineering, University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO, USA

    Chris J. Myers

  31. NASA - Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, OH, USA

    Jerry G. Myers Jr

  32. Molecular, Cellular and Developmental Biology Unit (MCD), Center of Integrative Biology, University of Toulouse III-Paul Sabatier, Toulouse, France

    Anna Niarakis

  33. Lifeware Group, Inria, Palaiseau, France

    Anna Niarakis

  34. Department of Biochemistry, University of Stellenbosch, Matieland, South Africa

    David D. van Niekerk, Johann M. Rohwer & Jacky L. Snoep

  35. Amsterdam Institute for Life and Environment, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands

    Brett G. Olivier

  36. Institute for Stochastics and Applications, University of Stuttgart, Germany, Germany

    Nicole Radde

  37. Department of Computer and Information Science, University of Konstanz, Konstanz, Germany

    Falk Schreiber

  38. Faculty of Information Technology, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

    Falk Schreiber

  39. Department of Pathology and Genomic Medicine, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Rajanikanth Vadigepalli

  40. Environmental Molecular Sciences Laboratory, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA, USA

    H. Steven Wiley

  41. Medical Informatics Laboratory, University Medicine Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany

    Dagmar Waltemath

Authors
  1. Herbert M. Sauro
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Eran Agmon
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Michael L. Blinov
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  4. John H. Gennari
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Joseph L. Hellerstein
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Adel Heydarabadipour
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Bartholomew E. Jardine
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Elebeoba May
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  9. David P. Nickerson
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Lucian P. Smith
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Gary D. Bader
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Frank T. Bergmann
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Patrick M. Boyle
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Andreas Dräger
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  15. James R. Faeder
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  16. Song Feng
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  17. Juliana Freire
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  18. Fabian Fröhlich
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  19. James A. Glazier
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  20. Thomas E. Gorochowski
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  21. Tomas Helikar
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  22. Henning Hermjakob
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  23. Stefan Hoops
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  24. Peter Hunter
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  25. Princess I. Imoukhuede
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  26. Sarah M. Keating
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  27. Matthias König
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  28. Reinhard Laubenbacher
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  29. Leslie M. Loew
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  30. Carlos F. Lopez
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  31. William W. Lytton
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  32. Rahuman S. Malik-Sheriff
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  33. Andrew McCulloch
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  34. Pedro Mendes
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  35. Lealem Mulugeta
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  36. Chris J. Myers
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  37. Jerry G. Myers Jr
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  38. Anna Niarakis
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  39. David D. van Niekerk
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  40. Brett G. Olivier
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  41. Alexander A. Patrie
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  42. Ellen M. Quardokus
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  43. Nicole Radde
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  44. Johann M. Rohwer
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  45. Sven Sahle
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  46. James C. Schaff
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  47. Falk Schreiber
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  48. T. J. Sego
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  49. Janis Shin
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  50. Jacky L. Snoep
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  51. Rajanikanth Vadigepalli
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  52. H. Steven Wiley
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  53. Dagmar Waltemath
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  54. Ion I. Moraru
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

H.M.S. conceived the study. H.M.S., A.D., A.M., B.E.J., C.F.L., C.J.M., E.M., G.D.B., H.M.S., I.I.M., J.F., J.H., J.H.G., P.H., P.M., P.M.B., R.V., T.E.G. and W.W.L., wrote and edited the manuscript. The remaining authors A.A.P., A.H., A.N., B.G.O., D.D.v.N., D.P.N., D.W., E.A., E.M.Q., F.F., F.S., F.T.B., H.H., J.A.G., J.C.S., J.G.M., J.L.H., J.L.S., J.M.R., J.R.F., J.S., L.M., L.M.L., L.P.S., M.K., M.L.B., N.R., P.I.I., R.L., R.S.M., S.F., S.H., S.M.K., S.S., T.H. and T.J.S., read and approved the manuscript content.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Herbert M. Sauro, Nicole Radde or Ion I. Moraru.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sauro, H.M., Agmon, E., Blinov, M.L. et al. From FAIR to CURE: guidelines for computational models of biological systems. npj Syst Biol Appl (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41540-026-00651-0

Download citation

  • Received: 22 January 2025

  • Accepted: 12 January 2026

  • Published: 27 March 2026

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41540-026-00651-0

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Download PDF

Advertisement

Explore content

  • Research articles
  • Reviews & Analysis
  • News & Comment
  • Collections
  • Follow us on X
  • Sign up for alerts
  • RSS feed

About the journal

  • Aims & Scope
  • Content types
  • Journal Information
  • About the Editors
  • Contact
  • Open Access
  • Calls for Papers
  • Article Processing Charges
  • Editorial policies
  • Journal Metrics
  • About the Partner

Publish with us

  • For Authors and Referees
  • Language editing services
  • Open access funding
  • Submit manuscript

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

  • Explore articles by subject
  • Find a job
  • Guide to authors
  • Editorial policies

npj Systems Biology and Applications (npj Syst Biol Appl)

ISSN 2056-7189 (online)

nature.com footer links

About Nature Portfolio

  • About us
  • Press releases
  • Press office
  • Contact us

Discover content

  • Journals A-Z
  • Articles by subject
  • protocols.io
  • Nature Index

Publishing policies

  • Nature portfolio policies
  • Open access

Author & Researcher services

  • Reprints & permissions
  • Research data
  • Language editing
  • Scientific editing
  • Nature Masterclasses
  • Research Solutions

Libraries & institutions

  • Librarian service & tools
  • Librarian portal
  • Open research
  • Recommend to library

Advertising & partnerships

  • Advertising
  • Partnerships & Services
  • Media kits
  • Branded content

Professional development

  • Nature Awards
  • Nature Careers
  • Nature Conferences

Regional websites

  • Nature Africa
  • Nature China
  • Nature India
  • Nature Japan
  • Nature Middle East
  • Privacy Policy
  • Use of cookies
  • Legal notice
  • Accessibility statement
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Your US state privacy rights
Springer Nature

© 2026 Springer Nature Limited

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing