English   español  
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/10261/128247
Share/Impact:
Statistics
logo share SHARE logo core CORE   Add this article to your Mendeley library MendeleyBASE

Visualizar otros formatos: MARC | Dublin Core | RDF | ORE | MODS | METS | DIDL | DATACITE
Exportar a otros formatos:

Title

Do genome-scale models need exact solvers or clearer standards?

AuthorsEbrahim, Ali; Nogales, Juan CSIC ORCID ; Thiele, Ines
Issue Date2015
PublisherEuropean Molecular Biology Organization
CitationMolecular Systems Biology 11: 831 (2015)
AbstractConstraint‐based analysis of genome‐scale models (GEMs) arose shortly after the first genome sequences became available. As numerous reviews of the field show, this approach and methodology has proven to be successful in studying a wide range of biological phenomena (McCloskey et al, 2013; Bordbar et al, 2014). However, efforts to expand the user base are impeded by hurdles in correctly formulating these problems to obtain numerical solutions. In particular, in a study entitled “An exact arithmetic toolbox for a consistent and reproducible structural analysis of metabolic network models” (Chindelevitch et al, 2014), the authors apply an exact solver to 88 genome‐scale constraint‐based models of metabolism. The authors claim that COBRA calculations (Orth et al, 2010) are inconsistent with their results and that many published and actively used (Lee et al, 2007; McCloskey et al, 2013) genome‐scale models do support cellular growth in existing studies only because of numerical errors. They base these broad claims on two observations: (i) three reconstructions (iAF1260, iIT341, and iNJ661) compute feasibly in COBRA, but are infeasible when exact numerical algorithms are used by their software (entitled MONGOOSE); (ii) linear programs generated by MONGOOSE for iIT341 were submitted to the NEOS Server (a Web site that runs linear programs through various solvers) and gave inconsistent results. They further claim that a large percentage of these COBRA models are actually unable to produce biomass flux. Here, we demonstrate that the claims made by Chindelevitch et al (2014) stem from an incorrect parsing of models from files rather than actual problems with numerical error or COBRA computations.
Description3 p. Ebrahim, Ali et al.
Publisher version (URL)http://dx.doi.org/ 10.15252/msb.20156157
URIhttp://hdl.handle.net/10261/128247
DOIhttp://dx.doi.org/10.15252/msb.20156157
ISSN1744-4292
E-ISSN1744-4292
Appears in Collections:(CIB) Artículos
Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
Ebrahim_et_al-2015-Molecular_Systems_Biology.pdfArtículo principal148,43 kBAdobe PDFThumbnail
View/Open
Show full item record
Review this work
 

Related articles:


WARNING: Items in Digital.CSIC are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.