| Literature DB >> 23448228 |
Joel Jordà1, Camilo Suarez, Marc Carnicer, Angela ten Pierick, Joseph J Heijnen, Walter van Gulik, Pau Ferrer, Joan Albiol, Aljoscha Wahl.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Several studies have shown that the utilization of mixedEntities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23448228 PMCID: PMC3626722 DOI: 10.1186/1752-0509-7-17
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Syst Biol ISSN: 1752-0509
Figure 1Dynamics of mass isotopomers distribution of metabolites in chemostat cultures after switching to C-labeled substrates. Experimental data points are represented as solid circles. Solid lines reflect the simulation with the best flux estimation using the extended metabolic model (see Additional file 2). Dashed lines reflect the simulation with the best flux estimation using the metabolic model previously defined by [22].
Figure 2Thermodynamic analysis of the reaction network, (a) Thermodynamically feasible concentration range of the measured metabolites and expected ranges of the non measured ones. The white bars represent a priori considered metabolite ranges, the light grey bars (measured metabolites) and the green bars (unmeasured metabolites) show the corrected values after performing a network-embedded thermodynamic (NET) analysis. In case of detection of a significant metabolite quantification error, the original measurement (red bar) and concentration ranges before and after the NET analysis are shown together. (b) Transformed Gibbs energy of the cytosolic reactions of the central carbon metabolism of P. pastoris growing on glucose-methanol.
Specific uptake and production rates of growing on glucose-methanol in chemostat cultures (D = 0.09 h)
| -0.71 ± 0.01 | -0.94 ± 0.02 | -2.57 ± 0.03 | 2.03 ± 0.03 | 3.14 ± 0.04 | 0.79 ± 0.04 |
Reconciled specific rates and calculated standard deviations [50] based on triplicate measurements; RQ, Respiratory Quotient. Consistency index h was below 5 for a redundancy of 3 (95% significance level).
Figure 3Intracellular concentrations of cells growing on glucose-methanol. (a) Central carbon intermediates (b), Amino acids (c) Cometabolites and Nucleotides. Concentrations are given in μmol/gCDW.
Comparison of mass action ratios of central carbon metabolism reactions under different cultivation conditions
| PGI | Fru6P/Glc6P | 0.22 ± 0.03 | 0.22 ± 0.11 | 0.26 ± 0.00 |
| PMI | Man6P/Fru6P | 0.36 ± 0.08 | 1.27 ± 0.06 | 1.18 ± 0.01 |
| ENO | Pep/PG2 | 3.3 ± 0.29 | 1.67 ± 0.10 | 4.01 ± 0.09 |
| FMH | MAL/FUM | 3.7 ± 2.15 | 5.25 ± 0.38 | 5.15 ± 0.14 |
aData taken from [11].
bData taken from [40].
PGI, Phosphoglucose Isomerase, PMI, Phosphomannose Isomerase; ENO, Enolase; FMH, Fumarase.
Figure 4Metabolic flux distribution based on C flux analysis using the extended metabolic model. The flux values are given in μmol/gCDW/h. The upper value represents the net flux (in direction of the arrow), the lower value (on blue background) reflects the backward flux (absolute). All fluxes are also listed in Additional file 6.
Estimated NAD/NADH ratio under different cultivation conditions
| Methanol-glucose | 1906 | 1287 | 697 |
| Glucosea | 233 | 101 | 28 |
aData taken from [53].
Reported are the minimal NAD+/NADH ratios (NAD+/NADHmin), that fulfill the thermodynamic constraints (reaction directionality) at the measured and assumed concentrations (see Results section on Metabolome Analysis) for different intracellular pH.