4.8 Article

CeCaFDB: a curated database for the documentation, visualization and comparative analysis of central carbon metabolic flux distributions explored by 13C-fluxomics

期刊

NUCLEIC ACIDS RESEARCH
卷 43, 期 D1, 页码 D549-D557

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/nar/gku1137

关键词

-

资金

  1. Chinese National Natural Science Foundations [31200626, 31460233]
  2. Programme for Changjiang Scholars and the Innovative Research Teams at the University [PCSIRT-1227]
  3. Initial Fund for the Key Laboratory of Guizhou Province [2011-4005]
  4. Guizhou Lianhe Foundation [LKS(2012)22]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Central Carbon Metabolic Flux Database (CeCaFDB, available at http://www.cecafdb.org) is a manually curated, multipurpose and open-access database for the documentation, visualization and comparative analysis of the quantitative flux results of central carbon metabolism among microbes and animal cells. It encompasses records for more than 500 flux distributions among 36 organisms and includes information regarding the genotype, culture medium, growth conditions and other specific information gathered from hundreds of journal articles. In addition to its comprehensive literature-derived data, the CeCaFDB supports a common text search function among the data and interactive visualization of the curated flux distributions with compartmentation information based on the Cytoscape Web API, which facilitates data interpretation. The CeCaFDB offers four modules to calculate a similarity score or to perform an alignment between the flux distributions. One of the modules was built using an inter programming algorithm for flux distribution alignment that was specifically designed for this study. Based on these modules, the CeCaFDB also supports an extensive flux distribution comparison function among the curated data. The CeCaFDB is strenuously designed to address the broad demands of biochemists, metabolic engineers, systems biologists and members of the -omics community.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据