Cargando…

Comparison of pathway analysis and constraint-based methods for cell factory design

BACKGROUND: Computational strain optimisation methods (CSOMs) have been successfully used to exploit genome-scale metabolic models, yielding strategies useful for allowing compound overproduction in metabolic cell factories. Minimal cut sets are particularly interesting since their definition allows...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Vieira, Vítor, Maia, Paulo, Rocha, Miguel, Rocha, Isabel
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6585037/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31221092
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12859-019-2934-y
_version_ 1783428625216831488
author Vieira, Vítor
Maia, Paulo
Rocha, Miguel
Rocha, Isabel
author_facet Vieira, Vítor
Maia, Paulo
Rocha, Miguel
Rocha, Isabel
author_sort Vieira, Vítor
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Computational strain optimisation methods (CSOMs) have been successfully used to exploit genome-scale metabolic models, yielding strategies useful for allowing compound overproduction in metabolic cell factories. Minimal cut sets are particularly interesting since their definition allows searching for intervention strategies that impose strong growth-coupling phenotypes, and are not subject to optimality bias when compared with simulation-based CSOMs. However, since both types of methods have different underlying principles, they also imply different ways to formulate metabolic engineering problems, posing an obstacle when comparing their outputs. RESULTS: In this work, we perform an in-depth analysis of potential strategies that can be obtained with both methods, providing a critical comparison of performance, robustness, predicted phenotypes as well as strategy structure and size. To this end, we devised a pipeline including enumeration of strategies from evolutionary algorithms (EA) and minimal cut sets (MCS), filtering and flux analysis of predicted mutants to optimize the production of succinic acid in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. We additionally attempt to generalize problem formulations for MCS enumeration within the context of growth-coupled product synthesis. Strategies from evolutionary algorithms show the best compromise between acceptable growth rates and compound overproduction. However, constrained MCSs lead to a larger variety of phenotypes with several degrees of growth-coupling with production flux. The latter have proven useful in revealing the importance, in silico, of the gamma-aminobutyric acid shunt and manipulation of cofactor pools in growth-coupled designs for succinate production, mechanisms which have also been touted as potentially useful for metabolic engineering. CONCLUSIONS: The two main groups of CSOMs are valuable for finding growth-coupled mutants. Despite the limitations in maximum growth rates and large strategy sizes, MCSs help uncover novel mechanisms for compound overproduction and thus, analyzing outputs from both methods provides a richer overview on strategies that can be potentially carried over in vivo. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12859-019-2934-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6585037
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-65850372019-06-27 Comparison of pathway analysis and constraint-based methods for cell factory design Vieira, Vítor Maia, Paulo Rocha, Miguel Rocha, Isabel BMC Bioinformatics Research Article BACKGROUND: Computational strain optimisation methods (CSOMs) have been successfully used to exploit genome-scale metabolic models, yielding strategies useful for allowing compound overproduction in metabolic cell factories. Minimal cut sets are particularly interesting since their definition allows searching for intervention strategies that impose strong growth-coupling phenotypes, and are not subject to optimality bias when compared with simulation-based CSOMs. However, since both types of methods have different underlying principles, they also imply different ways to formulate metabolic engineering problems, posing an obstacle when comparing their outputs. RESULTS: In this work, we perform an in-depth analysis of potential strategies that can be obtained with both methods, providing a critical comparison of performance, robustness, predicted phenotypes as well as strategy structure and size. To this end, we devised a pipeline including enumeration of strategies from evolutionary algorithms (EA) and minimal cut sets (MCS), filtering and flux analysis of predicted mutants to optimize the production of succinic acid in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. We additionally attempt to generalize problem formulations for MCS enumeration within the context of growth-coupled product synthesis. Strategies from evolutionary algorithms show the best compromise between acceptable growth rates and compound overproduction. However, constrained MCSs lead to a larger variety of phenotypes with several degrees of growth-coupling with production flux. The latter have proven useful in revealing the importance, in silico, of the gamma-aminobutyric acid shunt and manipulation of cofactor pools in growth-coupled designs for succinate production, mechanisms which have also been touted as potentially useful for metabolic engineering. CONCLUSIONS: The two main groups of CSOMs are valuable for finding growth-coupled mutants. Despite the limitations in maximum growth rates and large strategy sizes, MCSs help uncover novel mechanisms for compound overproduction and thus, analyzing outputs from both methods provides a richer overview on strategies that can be potentially carried over in vivo. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12859-019-2934-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2019-06-20 /pmc/articles/PMC6585037/ /pubmed/31221092 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12859-019-2934-y Text en © The Author(s). 2019 Open AccessThis 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
Vieira, Vítor
Maia, Paulo
Rocha, Miguel
Rocha, Isabel
Comparison of pathway analysis and constraint-based methods for cell factory design
title Comparison of pathway analysis and constraint-based methods for cell factory design
title_full Comparison of pathway analysis and constraint-based methods for cell factory design
title_fullStr Comparison of pathway analysis and constraint-based methods for cell factory design
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of pathway analysis and constraint-based methods for cell factory design
title_short Comparison of pathway analysis and constraint-based methods for cell factory design
title_sort comparison of pathway analysis and constraint-based methods for cell factory design
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6585037/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31221092
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12859-019-2934-y
work_keys_str_mv AT vieiravitor comparisonofpathwayanalysisandconstraintbasedmethodsforcellfactorydesign
AT maiapaulo comparisonofpathwayanalysisandconstraintbasedmethodsforcellfactorydesign
AT rochamiguel comparisonofpathwayanalysisandconstraintbasedmethodsforcellfactorydesign
AT rochaisabel comparisonofpathwayanalysisandconstraintbasedmethodsforcellfactorydesign