| Literature DB >> 17123434 |
Anne Kümmel1, Sven Panke, Matthias Heinemann.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The availability of genome sequences for many organisms enabled the reconstruction of several genome-scale metabolic network models. Currently, significant efforts are put into the automated reconstruction of such models. For this, several computational tools have been developed that particularly assist in identifying and compiling the organism-specific lists of metabolic reactions. In contrast, the last step of the model reconstruction process, which is the definition of the thermodynamic constraints in terms of reaction directionalities, still needs to be done manually. No computational method exists that allows for an automated and systematic assignment of reaction directions in genome-scale models.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2006 PMID: 17123434 PMCID: PMC1664590 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2105-7-512
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Bioinformatics ISSN: 1471-2105 Impact factor: 3.169
Figure 1Illustration of the algorithm for systematic assignment of reaction directions. Panel a gives an overview over the direction assignment procedure. Each step (white boxes) is decribed in detail in panel b.
Figure 2Illustration of reaction cycles.
Co-substrate groups that were eliminated from the stoichiometric matrix to identify energy producing cycles
| selected co-substrate groups |
| NTP, NDP, NMP |
| NADH, NAD+ |
| NADPH, NADP+ |
| FADH2, FAD+ |
Besides these co-substrates, also the molecules water, oxygen, carbon dioxide, ammonium and inorganic phosphate were removed from the stoichiometric matrix to identify energy producing cycles. This is necessary to elementally balance the resulting net conversion of co-substrates. NTP, NDP and NMP denote nucleoside tri-, di- and monophosphate for adenosine, cytidine, guanosine, inosine and uridine.
Figure 3Illustration of the procedure to assign reaction directions by heuristic rules. For the assignment steps 2a–2c (cf. Fig. 1), the applied heuristic rules are displayed. Generally, the rules defined a reaction as irreversible in the direction of consumption of a high-energy co-substrate. The rules, however, were not applied if the respective reaction simultaneously produced CO2. The vertical arrows indicate the consecutive application of the rules: if no assignment was possible with a particular heuristic rule, the next rule along the arrow was employed. The consumption of a co-substrate with a higher energetic content was prefered over the consumption of a co-substrate with a lower energetic content. In case the cycle contains more than one reaction producing the same highly energetic co-substrate, all these reaction steps are defined as irreversible. In pair cycles (2a), the reaction that produces the only generated co-substrate was defined as irreversible as long as it did not consume CO2. In case of CO2 consumption, however, it follows that the other reaction also produces CO2 and we define this reaction direction as irreversible. As only one co-substrate pair is converted in each pair cycle, the assignment was achieved by applying the heuristic rules consecutively while omitting the first rule as indicated in the figure. In the analysis of the remaining energy producing cycles (2b), the cycles can contain reaction steps that produce different kinds of co-substrates. Here, in the first place we restricted CO2 consumption, which is in general indicating a thermodynamically infeasible reaction step. If no CO2 consuming reaction was preset, the production of highly energetic co-substrates were disabled with the indicated priorities. Note that NADPH and NADH producing reactions, here, were assigned with the same priority (not illustrated in the figure). In the bypass analysis (2c), reaction directions were assigned for CO2 consuming or nucleotide triphosphates producing reactions. Preliminary studies showed that only these heuristic rules were fully reliable in this assignment step, and thus, we only applied these two rules.
Overview over the number of direction assignments made in each step
| assignment step | analysis of ... | number of assigned directions | |
| in the respective step | in total | ||
| thermodynamic facts | 43 | 43 | |
| thermodynamic heuristics | pair cycles | 42 | 85 |
| remaining energy producing cycles | 21 | 106 | |
| bypasses | 24 | 130 | |
Number of additional direction assignments required to eliminate remaining thermodynamically infeasible energy production
| common attributes | standard procedure | standard procedure with consideration of final electron acceptors |
| quinone pool reductions | 15 | - |
| transporters | 9 | 8 |
| NTP production | 14 | 12 |
| NADH/NADPH production | 5 | 4 |
| O2 production | 2 | 1 |
| CO2 consumption | 4 | 4 |
| NMP synthesis | 7 | 7 |
| other | 3 | 3 |
| sum | 59 | 39 |
Figure 4Comparison of the assignment where final electron acceptors are considered to the default assignment. The numbers of made direction assignments of the standard assignment procedure (A) and the assignment procedure, which additionally drew on the direction of electron transfer within the respiratory chain (B) are compared. The numbers (1 – 2c) refer to the assignment steps depicted in Fig. 1, while step 0 represents the reaction directions that were assigned by the additional heuristic rule based on final electron acceptors.