4.6 Article

A Method to Constrain Genome-Scale Models with 13C Labeling Data

期刊

PLOS COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY
卷 11, 期 9, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004363

关键词

-

资金

  1. Office of Science, Office of Biological and Environmental Research, of U.S. Department of Energy [DE-AC02-05CH11231]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Current limitations in quantitatively predicting biological behavior hinder our efforts to engineer biological systems to produce biofuels and other desired chemicals. Here, we present a new method for calculating metabolic fluxes, key targets in metabolic engineering, that incorporates data from C-13 labeling experiments and genome-scale models. The data from C-13 labeling experiments provide strong flux constraints that eliminate the need to assume an evolutionary optimization principle such as the growth rate optimization assumption used in Flux Balance Analysis (FBA). This effective constraining is achieved by making the simple but biologically relevant assumption that flux flows from core to peripheral metabolism and does not flow back. The new method is significantly more robust than FBA with respect to errors in genome-scale model reconstruction. Furthermore, it can provide a comprehensive picture of metabolite balancing and predictions for unmeasured extracellular fluxes as constrained by C-13 labeling data. A comparison shows that the results of this new method are similar to those found through C-13 Metabolic Flux Analysis (C-13 MFA) for central carbon metabolism but, additionally, it provides flux estimates for peripheral metabolism. The extra validation gained by matching 48 relative labeling measurements is used to identify where and why several existing COnstraint Based Reconstruction and Analysis (COBRA) flux prediction algorithms fail. We demonstrate how to use this knowledge to refine these methods and improve their predictive capabilities. This method provides a reliable base upon which to improve the design of biological systems.

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

4.6
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