Cargando…

How accurate is automated gap filling of metabolic models?

BACKGROUND: Reaction gap filling is a computational technique for proposing the addition of reactions to genome-scale metabolic models to permit those models to run correctly. Gap filling completes what are otherwise incomplete models that lack fully connected metabolic networks. The models are inco...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Karp, Peter D., Weaver, Daniel, Latendresse, Mario
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6006690/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29914471
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12918-018-0593-7
_version_ 1783332886598909952
author Karp, Peter D.
Weaver, Daniel
Latendresse, Mario
author_facet Karp, Peter D.
Weaver, Daniel
Latendresse, Mario
author_sort Karp, Peter D.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Reaction gap filling is a computational technique for proposing the addition of reactions to genome-scale metabolic models to permit those models to run correctly. Gap filling completes what are otherwise incomplete models that lack fully connected metabolic networks. The models are incomplete because they are derived from annotated genomes in which not all enzymes have been identified. Here we compare the results of applying an automated likelihood-based gap filler within the Pathway Tools software with the results of manually gap filling the same metabolic model. Both gap-filling exercises were applied to the same genome-derived qualitative metabolic reconstruction for Bifidobacterium longum subsp. longum JCM 1217, and to the same modeling conditions — anaerobic growth under four nutrients producing 53 biomass metabolites. RESULTS: The solution computed by the gap-filling program GenDev contained 12 reactions, but closer examination showed that solution was not minimal; two of the twelve reactions can be removed to yield a set of ten reactions that enable model growth. The manually curated solution contained 13 reactions, eight of which were shared with the 12-reaction computed solution. Thus, GenDev achieved recall of 61.5% and precision of 66.6%. These results suggest that although computational gap fillers are populating metabolic models with significant numbers of correct reactions, automatically gap-filled metabolic models also contain significant numbers of incorrect reactions. CONCLUSIONS: Our conclusion is that manual curation of gap-filler results is needed to obtain high-accuracy models. Many of the differences between the manual and automatic solutions resulted from using expert biological knowledge to direct the choice of reactions within the curated solution, such as reactions specific to the anaerobic lifestyle of B. longum. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12918-018-0593-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6006690
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-60066902018-06-26 How accurate is automated gap filling of metabolic models? Karp, Peter D. Weaver, Daniel Latendresse, Mario BMC Syst Biol Research Article BACKGROUND: Reaction gap filling is a computational technique for proposing the addition of reactions to genome-scale metabolic models to permit those models to run correctly. Gap filling completes what are otherwise incomplete models that lack fully connected metabolic networks. The models are incomplete because they are derived from annotated genomes in which not all enzymes have been identified. Here we compare the results of applying an automated likelihood-based gap filler within the Pathway Tools software with the results of manually gap filling the same metabolic model. Both gap-filling exercises were applied to the same genome-derived qualitative metabolic reconstruction for Bifidobacterium longum subsp. longum JCM 1217, and to the same modeling conditions — anaerobic growth under four nutrients producing 53 biomass metabolites. RESULTS: The solution computed by the gap-filling program GenDev contained 12 reactions, but closer examination showed that solution was not minimal; two of the twelve reactions can be removed to yield a set of ten reactions that enable model growth. The manually curated solution contained 13 reactions, eight of which were shared with the 12-reaction computed solution. Thus, GenDev achieved recall of 61.5% and precision of 66.6%. These results suggest that although computational gap fillers are populating metabolic models with significant numbers of correct reactions, automatically gap-filled metabolic models also contain significant numbers of incorrect reactions. CONCLUSIONS: Our conclusion is that manual curation of gap-filler results is needed to obtain high-accuracy models. Many of the differences between the manual and automatic solutions resulted from using expert biological knowledge to direct the choice of reactions within the curated solution, such as reactions specific to the anaerobic lifestyle of B. longum. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12918-018-0593-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2018-06-19 /pmc/articles/PMC6006690/ /pubmed/29914471 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12918-018-0593-7 Text en © The Author(s) 2018 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Karp, Peter D.
Weaver, Daniel
Latendresse, Mario
How accurate is automated gap filling of metabolic models?
title How accurate is automated gap filling of metabolic models?
title_full How accurate is automated gap filling of metabolic models?
title_fullStr How accurate is automated gap filling of metabolic models?
title_full_unstemmed How accurate is automated gap filling of metabolic models?
title_short How accurate is automated gap filling of metabolic models?
title_sort how accurate is automated gap filling of metabolic models?
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6006690/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29914471
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12918-018-0593-7
work_keys_str_mv AT karppeterd howaccurateisautomatedgapfillingofmetabolicmodels
AT weaverdaniel howaccurateisautomatedgapfillingofmetabolicmodels
AT latendressemario howaccurateisautomatedgapfillingofmetabolicmodels