| Literature DB >> 15929789 |
Roland Schwarz1, Patrick Musch, Axel von Kamp, Bernd Engels, Heiner Schirmer, Stefan Schuster, Thomas Dandekar.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A number of algorithms for steady state analysis of metabolic networks have been developed over the years. Of these, Elementary Mode Analysis (EMA) has proven especially useful. Despite its low user-friendliness, METATOOL as a reliable high-performance implementation of the algorithm has been the instrument of choice up to now. As reported here, the analysis of metabolic networks has been improved by an editor and analyzer of metabolic flux modes. Analysis routines for expression levels and the most central, well connected metabolites and their metabolic connections are of particular interest.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2005 PMID: 15929789 PMCID: PMC1175843 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2105-6-135
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Bioinformatics ISSN: 1471-2105 Impact factor: 3.169
Figure 2Screenshot of the simulated enzyme activities diagram. Diagram of simulated spot intensities on a gel, after activation of GR containing elementary modes. Obviously glutathione reductase is indeed most active whereas other enzymes not involved in the core GR part of the system are downregulated.
Individual enzyme activities summed over all elementary modes Calculation of individual enzyme activities according to a given flux distribution: The 134 modes obtained from the input system [see Additional file 1] are all assumed to be active with standard (1 flux unit) activity. Alternatively, fractions of full activity of individual modes (given in percentages) can be set by the user and included in the calculation. For the standard flux vector, the total enzyme activities are calculated by YANA as follows (arbitrary units, only relative fluxes are calculated):
| ALD | 203.0 | ApK | 111.0 | DPGM | 38.0 | EN | 598.0 |
| GAPDH | 598.0 | GpoI | 209.0 | Gr | 399.0 | HYPXLeak | 74.0 |
| LACex | 598.0 | PGI | 203.0 | PGK | 560.0 | PGLase | 576.0 |
| PGM | 598.0 | Pmr | 201.0 | PNPase | 111.0 | PRM | 111.0 |
| PRPPsyn | 111.0 | R5PI | 192.0 | TA | 192.0 | TKI | 192.0 |
| TKII | 192.0 | TPI | 203.0 | TrxRI | 589.0 | Xu5PE | 384.0 |
| ADA | 37.0 | AdPRT | 74.0 | AK | 38.0 | AMPase | 75.0 |
| AMPDA | 37.0 | Cat | 6.0 | Cca | 37.0 | CgdI | 37.0 |
| CgdII | 75.0 | CytI | 38.0 | DPGase | 38.0 | G6PD | 576.0 |
| Gcl | 112.0 | GL6PDH | 576.0 | GLCim | 395.0 | Gls | 112.0 |
| GtfI | 37.0 | GtfII | 37.0 | GtfIII | 38.0 | Gtr | 37.0 |
| Har | 7.0 | HGPRT | 37.0 | HK | 395.0 | IMPase | 74.0 |
| LDH | 598.0 | MemPhos | 38.0 | Nos | 196.0 | Opr | 38.0 |
| Pdo | 99.0 | PFK | 203.0 | PK | 598.0 | Sod | 196.0 |
| Tdi | 196.0 | Xen | 196.0 |
Figure 1Screenshot of the GR (glutathione reductase) system in YANA. The YANA main screen showing the GR redox network involving 75 metabolites (left side view) and 58 enzymes (right side view), resulting in 134 flux modes (not shown here).
EA performance for three levels of complexity
| 134 | 1147.3 sec |
| 48 | 81.7 sec |
| 24 | 13.2 sec |
Simplification of the GR system by dissection at highly connected metabolites (cutting)
| >11 | 134 | 46 (34%) | 117 (87%) | 128 (95%) | 22.35 |
| 7 | 215 | 68 (31%) | 131 (60%) | 199 (92%) | 22.26 |
| 5 | 35 | 4 (11%) | 18 (52%) | 16 (47%) | 6.17 |
| 3 | 10 | 0 (0%) | 5 (50%) | 2 (20%) | 3.0 |
Simplification of the GR system by concentration on highly connected metabolites (centralization)
| 0 | 134 | 46 (34%) | 117 (87%) | 128 (95%) | 22.35 |
| 5 | 87 | 22 (25%) | 45 (52%) | 32 (37%) | 2.75 |
| 10 | 24 | 0 (0%) | 24 (100%) | 0 (0%) | 2.38 |