Thermodynamic Constraints Improve Metabolic Networks

Overview

Journal Biophys J

Publisher Cell Press

Specialty Biophysics

Date 2017 Aug 10

PMID 28793222

Citations 5

Authors

Elias W Krumholz

Igor G L Libourel

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

In pursuit of establishing a realistic metabolic phenotypic space, the reversibility of reactions is thermodynamically constrained in modern metabolic networks. The reversibility constraints follow from heuristic thermodynamic poise approximations that take anticipated cellular metabolite concentration ranges into account. Because constraints reduce the feasible space, draft metabolic network reconstructions may need more extensive reconciliation, and a larger number of genes may become essential. Notwithstanding ubiquitous application, the effect of reversibility constraints on the predictive capabilities of metabolic networks has not been investigated in detail. Instead, work has focused on the implementation and validation of the thermodynamic poise calculation itself. With the advance of fast linear programming-based network reconciliation, the effects of reversibility constraints on network reconciliation and gene essentiality predictions have become feasible and are the subject of this study. Networks with thermodynamically informed reversibility constraints outperformed gene essentiality predictions compared to networks that were constrained with randomly shuffled constraints. Unconstrained networks predicted gene essentiality as accurately as thermodynamically constrained networks, but predicted substantially fewer essential genes. Networks that were reconciled with sequence similarity data and strongly enforced reversibility constraints outperformed all other networks. We conclude that metabolic network analysis confirmed the validity of the thermodynamic constraints, and that thermodynamic poise information is actionable during network reconciliation.

Citing Articles

Improving genome-scale metabolic models of incomplete genomes with deep learning.

Boer M, Melkonian C, Zafeiropoulos H, Haas A, Garza D, Dutilh B iScience. 2024; 27(12):111349.

PMID: 39660058 PMC: 11629236. DOI: 10.1016/j.isci.2024.111349.

Genome-scale metabolic network models: from first-generation to next-generation.

Ye C, Wei X, Shi T, Sun X, Xu N, Gao C Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2022; 106(13-16):4907-4920.

PMID: 35829788 DOI: 10.1007/s00253-022-12066-y.

Construction of Multiscale Genome-Scale Metabolic Models: Frameworks and Challenges.

Bi X, Liu Y, Li J, Du G, Lv X, Liu L Biomolecules. 2022; 12(5).

PMID: 35625648 PMC: 9139095. DOI: 10.3390/biom12050721.

A Mixed Quantum Chemistry/Machine Learning Approach for the Fast and Accurate Prediction of Biochemical Redox Potentials and Its Large-Scale Application to 315 000 Redox Reactions.

Jinich A, Sanchez-Lengeling B, Ren H, Harman R, Aspuru-Guzik A ACS Cent Sci. 2019; 5(7):1199-1210.

PMID: 31404220 PMC: 6661861. DOI: 10.1021/acscentsci.9b00297.

OptMDFpathway: Identification of metabolic pathways with maximal thermodynamic driving force and its application for analyzing the endogenous CO2 fixation potential of Escherichia coli.

Hadicke O, von Kamp A, Aydogan T, Klamt S PLoS Comput Biol. 2018; 14(9):e1006492.

PMID: 30248096 PMC: 6171959. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006492.

References

VanderSluis B, Hess D, Pesyna C, Krumholz E, Syed T, Szappanos B . Broad metabolic sensitivity profiling of a prototrophic yeast deletion collection. Genome Biol. 2014; 15(4):R64. PMC: 4053978. DOI: 10.1186/gb-2014-15-4-r64. View

Stelling J, Klamt S, Bettenbrock K, Schuster S, Gilles E . Metabolic network structure determines key aspects of functionality and regulation. Nature. 2002; 420(6912):190-3. DOI: 10.1038/nature01166. View

Plata G, Henry C, Vitkup D . Long-term phenotypic evolution of bacteria. Nature. 2014; 517(7534):369-72. DOI: 10.1038/nature13827. View

Seaver S, Gerdes S, Frelin O, Lerma-Ortiz C, Bradbury L, Zallot R . High-throughput comparison, functional annotation, and metabolic modeling of plant genomes using the PlantSEED resource. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014; 111(26):9645-50. PMC: 4084441. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1401329111. View

Lewis N, Hixson K, Conrad T, Lerman J, Charusanti P, Polpitiya A . Omic data from evolved E. coli are consistent with computed optimal growth from genome-scale models. Mol Syst Biol. 2010; 6:390. PMC: 2925526. DOI: 10.1038/msb.2010.47. View

Typas A, Nichols R, Siegele D, Shales M, Collins S, Lim B . High-throughput, quantitative analyses of genetic interactions in E. coli. Nat Methods. 2009; 5(9):781-7. PMC: 2700713. DOI: 10.1038/nmeth.1240. View

Krumholz E, Libourel I . Sequence-based Network Completion Reveals the Integrality of Missing Reactions in Metabolic Networks. J Biol Chem. 2015; 290(31):19197-207. PMC: 4521041. DOI: 10.1074/jbc.M114.634121. View

Beard D, Liang S, Qian H . Energy balance for analysis of complex metabolic networks. Biophys J. 2002; 83(1):79-86. PMC: 1302128. DOI: 10.1016/S0006-3495(02)75150-3. View

Edwards J, Ibarra R, Palsson B . In silico predictions of Escherichia coli metabolic capabilities are consistent with experimental data. Nat Biotechnol. 2001; 19(2):125-30. DOI: 10.1038/84379. View

10.

Kummel A, Panke S, Heinemann M . Systematic assignment of thermodynamic constraints in metabolic network models. BMC Bioinformatics. 2006; 7:512. PMC: 1664590. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2105-7-512. View

11.

Orth J, Conrad T, Na J, Lerman J, Nam H, Feist A . A comprehensive genome-scale reconstruction of Escherichia coli metabolism--2011. Mol Syst Biol. 2011; 7:535. PMC: 3261703. DOI: 10.1038/msb.2011.65. View

12.

Overbeek R, Olson R, Pusch G, Olsen G, Davis J, Disz T . The SEED and the Rapid Annotation of microbial genomes using Subsystems Technology (RAST). Nucleic Acids Res. 2013; 42(Database issue):D206-14. PMC: 3965101. DOI: 10.1093/nar/gkt1226. View

13.

Szappanos B, Kovacs K, Szamecz B, Honti F, Costanzo M, Baryshnikova A . An integrated approach to characterize genetic interaction networks in yeast metabolism. Nat Genet. 2011; 43(7):656-62. PMC: 3125439. DOI: 10.1038/ng.846. View

14.

Jankowski M, Henry C, Broadbelt L, Hatzimanikatis V . Group contribution method for thermodynamic analysis of complex metabolic networks. Biophys J. 2008; 95(3):1487-99. PMC: 2479599. DOI: 10.1529/biophysj.107.124784. View

15.

Adadi R, Volkmer B, Milo R, Heinemann M, Shlomi T . Prediction of microbial growth rate versus biomass yield by a metabolic network with kinetic parameters. PLoS Comput Biol. 2012; 8(7):e1002575. PMC: 3390398. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002575. View

16.

Khatri P, Sirota M, Butte A . Ten years of pathway analysis: current approaches and outstanding challenges. PLoS Comput Biol. 2012; 8(2):e1002375. PMC: 3285573. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002375. View

17.

Mavrovouniotis M . Group contributions for estimating standard gibbs energies of formation of biochemical compounds in aqueous solution. Biotechnol Bioeng. 1990; 36(10):1070-82. DOI: 10.1002/bit.260361013. View

18.

Durot M, Le Fevre F, de Berardinis V, Kreimeyer A, Vallenet D, Combe C . Iterative reconstruction of a global metabolic model of Acinetobacter baylyi ADP1 using high-throughput growth phenotype and gene essentiality data. BMC Syst Biol. 2008; 2:85. PMC: 2606687. DOI: 10.1186/1752-0509-2-85. View

19.

Feist A, Palsson B . The biomass objective function. Curr Opin Microbiol. 2010; 13(3):344-9. PMC: 2912156. DOI: 10.1016/j.mib.2010.03.003. View

20.

OBrien E, Monk J, Palsson B . Using Genome-scale Models to Predict Biological Capabilities. Cell. 2015; 161(5):971-987. PMC: 4451052. DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2015.05.019. View