| Literature DB >> 29420676 |
Sahely Bhadra1,2, Peter Blomberg3, Sandra Castillo3, Juho Rousu1.
Abstract
Motivation: In the analysis of metabolism, two distinct and complementary approaches are frequently used: Principal component analysis (PCA) and stoichiometric flux analysis. PCA is able to capture the main modes of variability in a set of experiments and does not make many prior assumptions about the data, but does not inherently take into account the flux mode structure of metabolism. Stoichiometric flux analysis methods, such as Flux Balance Analysis (FBA) and Elementary Mode Analysis, on the other hand, are able to capture the metabolic flux modes, however, they are primarily designed for the analysis of single samples at a time, and not best suited for exploratory analysis on a large sets of samples.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29420676 PMCID: PMC6041797 DOI: 10.1093/bioinformatics/bty049
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Bioinformatics ISSN: 1367-4803 Impact factor: 6.937
Fig. 1.The graph the first 3 components of models and shows (a) ROC for PMFA, (b) ROC for PEMA,(c) and precision-recall curves for PMFA and (d) PEMA for different noise levels. (e) and (f) plots respectively AUC and AUPR values obtained by different models for different noise levels
Fig. 2.Depicted is for two fluxomic datasets the fraction of variance on test data in LOO setting as a function of deviation from steady state () captured by PCA, directional PCA (PCA), 1-, 5- and 10-factor PEMA, as well as PMFA and rev-PMFA using different amount of Stoicihiometric regularization. The markers ‘’ and ‘o’ indicate the optimal level of regularization for PMFA and rev-PMFA
Fig. 3.Depicted is for the P.pastoris simulated dataset the fraction of variance on test data in LOO setting as a function of additional noise level captured by PCA, PCA 1-, 5- and 10-factor PEMA, as well as PMFA (with optimum regularization parameter)
Fig. 4.Variance (left) and normalized variance (right) on test data in 5 fold cross validation setting as a function of steady state deviation () on the whole genome gene expression data (containing both steady-state and transient samples) for PMFA SPMFA and FBA. The markers ‘’ indicate the optimal level of regularization
Fig. 5.The correlation of expression data for corresponding samples with first two SPMFs at expert chosen λ. Here we have considered PMFA with L2 constrain on on all samples but only mitochondrion reactions of S.cerevisiae oxygen series gene expression dataset
The loadings for few selected reactions corresponding to the first and second PMFs while taking l2 regularization on amount of metabolites produced or consumed
| Pathways | Reactions | 1st PMF | 2nd PMF |
|---|---|---|---|
| A | Malic enzyme (NAD) | 1.40 | 0 |
| A | Malic enzyme (NADP) | 1.65 | 0 |
| A | Acetolactate synthase | 1.72 | 0 |
| A | Pyruvate transport | 1.90 | 0 |
| A | Malate transport | 2.58 | 0.83 |
| B | Hydroxymethylglutaryl CoA synthase | 0 | 0.52 |
| B | Acetyl-CoA synthetase | 0 | 0.83 |
| B | Acetaldehyde dehydrogenase (NADP) | 0.10 | 0.83 |
| C | Aspartate-glutamate transport | 0 | 0.83 |
| C | Glutamate transport | 0 | 0.83 |
| C | Malate dehydrogenase | 0.71 | 0.83 |
| C | Oxoglutarate/malate exchange | 0.96 | 0.83 |
| D | Ubiquinol: ferricytochrome c reductase | 0 | 0.83 |
| D | Ferrocytochrome-c: oxygen oxidoreductase | 0 | 0.83 |
| D | ATP synthase | 0.16 | 0.83 |
| D | Succinate dehydrogenase (ubiquinone-6) | 0.52 | 0.83 |
| E | Glycine-cleavage complex (lipoylprotein) | 0 | 0.65 |
| E | Glycine hydroxymethyltransferase | −0.34 | 0.66 |
| E | Glycine-cleavage complex (lipoylprotein) | 0.14 | 0.70 |
| E | MethenylTHF cyclohydrolase | −0.29 | 0.71 |
| E | Glycine-cleavage complex (lipoylprotein) | 0 | 0.83 |
| E | MethyleneTHF dehydrogenase (NADP) | −0.56 | 0.83 |
| E | Methionyl-tRNA formyltransferase | 1.12 | 0.83 |
| F | Acetyl-CoA acetyltransferase | 1.42 | 0 |
| F | Oxoglutarate dehydrogenase (lipoamide) | 1.20 | 0.83 |
| F | Oxoglutarate dehydrogenase | 1.26 | 0.83 |
| F | Succinyl-CoA: acetate CoA transferase | −1.98 | 0.12 |
| F | ADP/ATP transport | 2.23 | −0.83 |
| F | Succinate transport | 2.48 | 0.10 |
| F | 2-Oxoglutarate transport | 2.62 | 0.38 |
| Total variance captured (%) | 25.20 | 26.57 | |
| Total steady state deviation | 22.15 | 4.01 |
Note: Pathways can be called as A. Malic pathway, B. Acetaldehyde pathway, C. Malate shuttle, D. Oxidative phosphorylation, E. Tetrahydrofolate pathway and F. ATP pathway.