4.6 Editorial Material

Community standards to facilitate development and address challenges in metabolic modeling

期刊

MOLECULAR SYSTEMS BIOLOGY
卷 16, 期 8, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.15252/msb.20199235

关键词

-

资金

  1. Institute for Systems Biology's Translational Research Fellows Program
  2. University of Virginia's Engineering-in-Medicine Seed Funding
  3. PhRMA Foundation Postdoctoral Fellowship for Translational Medicine and Therapeutics
  4. National Institutes of Health [2R01GM070923-13, R01AT010253]
  5. European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program [686070]
  6. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) [EXC 2124]
  7. German Center for Infection Research (DZIF, Deutsche Zentren der Gesundheitsforschung) [8020708703]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Standardization of data and models facilitates effective communication, especially in computational systems biology. However, both the development and consistent use of standards and resources remain challenging. As a result, the amount, quality, and format of the information contained within systems biology models are not consistent and therefore present challenges for widespread use and communication. Here, we focused on these standards, resources, and challenges in the field of constraint-based metabolic modeling by conducting a community-wide survey. We used this feedback to (i) outline the major challenges that our field faces and to propose solutions and (ii) identify a set of features that defines what a gold standard metabolic network reconstruction looks like concerning content, annotation, and simulation capabilities. We anticipate that this community-driven outline will help the long-term development of community-inspired resources as well as produce high-quality, accessible models within our field. More broadly, we hope that these efforts can serve as blueprints for other computational modeling communities to ensure the continued development of both practical, usable standards and reproducible, knowledge-rich models.

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