Cargando…

Simulated Design–Build–Test–Learn Cycles for Consistent Comparison of Machine Learning Methods in Metabolic Engineering

[Image: see text] Combinatorial pathway optimization is an important tool in metabolic flux optimization. Simultaneous optimization of a large number of pathway genes often leads to combinatorial explosions. Strain optimization is therefore often performed using iterative design–build–test–learn (DB...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: van Lent, Paul, Schmitz, Joep, Abeel, Thomas
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: American Chemical Society 2023
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10510747/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37616156
http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acssynbio.3c00186
_version_ 1785108009383362560
author van Lent, Paul
Schmitz, Joep
Abeel, Thomas
author_facet van Lent, Paul
Schmitz, Joep
Abeel, Thomas
author_sort van Lent, Paul
collection PubMed
description [Image: see text] Combinatorial pathway optimization is an important tool in metabolic flux optimization. Simultaneous optimization of a large number of pathway genes often leads to combinatorial explosions. Strain optimization is therefore often performed using iterative design–build–test–learn (DBTL) cycles. The aim of these cycles is to develop a product strain iteratively, every time incorporating learning from the previous cycle. Machine learning methods provide a potentially powerful tool to learn from data and propose new designs for the next DBTL cycle. However, due to the lack of a framework for consistently testing the performance of machine learning methods over multiple DBTL cycles, evaluating the effectiveness of these methods remains a challenge. In this work, we propose a mechanistic kinetic model-based framework to test and optimize machine learning for iterative combinatorial pathway optimization. Using this framework, we show that gradient boosting and random forest models outperform the other tested methods in the low-data regime. We demonstrate that these methods are robust for training set biases and experimental noise. Finally, we introduce an algorithm for recommending new designs using machine learning model predictions. We show that when the number of strains to be built is limited, starting with a large initial DBTL cycle is favorable over building the same number of strains for every cycle.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10510747
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher American Chemical Society
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-105107472023-09-21 Simulated Design–Build–Test–Learn Cycles for Consistent Comparison of Machine Learning Methods in Metabolic Engineering van Lent, Paul Schmitz, Joep Abeel, Thomas ACS Synth Biol [Image: see text] Combinatorial pathway optimization is an important tool in metabolic flux optimization. Simultaneous optimization of a large number of pathway genes often leads to combinatorial explosions. Strain optimization is therefore often performed using iterative design–build–test–learn (DBTL) cycles. The aim of these cycles is to develop a product strain iteratively, every time incorporating learning from the previous cycle. Machine learning methods provide a potentially powerful tool to learn from data and propose new designs for the next DBTL cycle. However, due to the lack of a framework for consistently testing the performance of machine learning methods over multiple DBTL cycles, evaluating the effectiveness of these methods remains a challenge. In this work, we propose a mechanistic kinetic model-based framework to test and optimize machine learning for iterative combinatorial pathway optimization. Using this framework, we show that gradient boosting and random forest models outperform the other tested methods in the low-data regime. We demonstrate that these methods are robust for training set biases and experimental noise. Finally, we introduce an algorithm for recommending new designs using machine learning model predictions. We show that when the number of strains to be built is limited, starting with a large initial DBTL cycle is favorable over building the same number of strains for every cycle. American Chemical Society 2023-08-24 /pmc/articles/PMC10510747/ /pubmed/37616156 http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acssynbio.3c00186 Text en © 2023 The Authors. Published by American Chemical Society https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Permits the broadest form of re-use including for commercial purposes, provided that author attribution and integrity are maintained (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle van Lent, Paul
Schmitz, Joep
Abeel, Thomas
Simulated Design–Build–Test–Learn Cycles for Consistent Comparison of Machine Learning Methods in Metabolic Engineering
title Simulated Design–Build–Test–Learn Cycles for Consistent Comparison of Machine Learning Methods in Metabolic Engineering
title_full Simulated Design–Build–Test–Learn Cycles for Consistent Comparison of Machine Learning Methods in Metabolic Engineering
title_fullStr Simulated Design–Build–Test–Learn Cycles for Consistent Comparison of Machine Learning Methods in Metabolic Engineering
title_full_unstemmed Simulated Design–Build–Test–Learn Cycles for Consistent Comparison of Machine Learning Methods in Metabolic Engineering
title_short Simulated Design–Build–Test–Learn Cycles for Consistent Comparison of Machine Learning Methods in Metabolic Engineering
title_sort simulated design–build–test–learn cycles for consistent comparison of machine learning methods in metabolic engineering
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10510747/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37616156
http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acssynbio.3c00186
work_keys_str_mv AT vanlentpaul simulateddesignbuildtestlearncyclesforconsistentcomparisonofmachinelearningmethodsinmetabolicengineering
AT schmitzjoep simulateddesignbuildtestlearncyclesforconsistentcomparisonofmachinelearningmethodsinmetabolicengineering
AT abeelthomas simulateddesignbuildtestlearncyclesforconsistentcomparisonofmachinelearningmethodsinmetabolicengineering