| Literature DB >> 22713172 |
Dave Lee1, Kieran Smallbone, Warwick B Dunn, Ettore Murabito, Catherine L Winder, Douglas B Kell, Pedro Mendes, Neil Swainston.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Constraint-based analysis of genome-scale metabolic models typically relies upon maximisation of a cellular objective function such as the rate or efficiency of biomass production. Whilst this assumption may be valid in the case of microorganisms growing under certain conditions, it is likely invalid in general, and especially for multicellular organisms, where cellular objectives differ greatly both between and within cell types. Moreover, for the purposes of biotechnological applications, it is normally the flux to a specific metabolite or product that is of interest rather than the rate of production of biomass per se.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2012 PMID: 22713172 PMCID: PMC3477026 DOI: 10.1186/1752-0509-6-73
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Syst Biol ISSN: 1752-0509
Figure 1 Steps undertaken in constraining metabolic models with gene expression data. The approach is applicable to genome-scale metabolic model that contain gene-protein-reaction (GPR) relationships. Absolute gene-expression data is mapped to individual reactions following the Boolean logic described in the “Mapping gene expression data to metabolic reactions” section of the Methods. Correlation between this gene-expression data and metabolic fluxes is maximised by following a three step algorithm comprising of: i) maximising the correlation between the initial set of irreversible reactions and the experimental data; ii) performing flux variability to determine additional reactions that must now be unidirectional; iii) repeating this cycle of maximising correlation until no extra irreversible reactions are found through flux variability analysis. The solution predicts exometabolic fluxes that can then be compared to those generated experimentally.
Comparison of experimental with predicted exometabolome fluxes, at 75% maximal biomass level
| Ethanol | 23.8 | 25.7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| CO2 | 22.7 | 31.5 | 37.6 | 22.7 | 31.5 | 48.5 |
| Glycerol | 3.54 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Acetate | 0.311 | 0.016 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Trehalose | 0.0356 | 0.0301 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Lactate | 0.00873 | 0.0301 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| R2 | 0.87 | -0.10 | 0.20 | 0.01 | -0.71 |
Comparison of experimental with predicted exometabolome fluxes, at 85% maximal biomass level
| Ethanol | 13.0 | 16.2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| CO2 | 21.0 | 20.1 | 25.0 | 21.0 | 16.0 | 32.2 |
| Glycerol | 2.17 | 0.126 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Acetate | 0.239 | 0.00911 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Trehalose | 0.0215 | 0.0220 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Lactate | 0.00609 | 0.0176 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| R2 | 0.96 | 0.54 | 0.58 | 0.52 | 0.28 |
Fluxes are reported in units of mmoles/hr/g dry weight (DW), and are scaled by measured glucose uptake flux [see additional file – exometabolomics.xls].
Predicted fluxes are given for the gene expression constrained approach, introduced here, and the standard FBA method that relies upon maximisation of biomass. As standard FBA generates a number of feasible solutions, the “best” solution (the one which minimises the taxicab distance between prediction and data) is reported as “Fitted FBA”. Additionally, the existing algorithms GIMME [18] and iMAT [14] are applied, using the same model and gene expression data as was used to generate the gene expression constrained results.