Back

A Novel Optimization-Based Tool to Automate Infeasible Cycle-Free Gapfilling of Genome-Scale Metabolic Models

Schroeder, W. L.; Saha, R.

2019-10-07 systems biology
10.1101/796706 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Stoichiometric metabolic modeling, particularly Genome-Scale Models (GSMs), is now an indispensable tool for systems biology. The model reconstruction process typically involves collecting information from public databases; however, incomplete systems knowledge leaves gaps in any reconstruction. Current tools for addressing gaps use databases of biochemical functionalities to address gaps on a per-metabolite basis and can provide multiple solutions, but cannot avoid Thermodynamically Infeasible Cycles (TICs), invariably requiring lengthy manual curation. To address these limitations, this work introduces an optimization-based multi-step method named OptFill which performs TIC-avoiding whole-model gapfilling. We applied OptFill to three fictional prokaryotic models of increasing sizes and to a published GSM of Escherichia coli, iJR904. This application resulted in holistic and infeasible cycle free gapfilling solutions. Part of OptFill can, in addition, be adapted to automate inherent TICs identification in any GSM, such as iJR904. Overall, OptFill can address critical issues in automated development of high-quality GSMs.\n\nIn BriefStoichiometric models of metabolism are useful in studying metabolic interactions in biological systems, but are labor-intensive to create, particularly when addressing gaps or cycles in metabolic reconstruction process. Introduced here is a novel tool, OptFill, which can be used to address both gaps and cycles in model reconstruction, increasing automation.\n\nHighlightsO_LIThis work presents an alternative to state-of-the-art methods for gapfilling.\nC_LIO_LIUnlike current methods, this method is holistic and infeasible cycle free.\nC_LIO_LIThis method is applied to three test and one published model.\nC_LIO_LIThis method might also be used to address infeasible cycling.\nC_LI

Matching journals

The top 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.