Cited by 6Microbial Metabolic Engineering and BioproductionGene Regulatory Network AnalysisBioinformatics and Genomic Networks

Bottom-up parameterization of enzyme rate constants: Reconciling inconsistent data

Open access
Zielinski, Daniel C., Matos, Marta R.A., de Bree, James E., Glass, Kevin, Sonnenschein, Nikolaus, Palsson, Bernhard O.·2024·Metabolic Engineering Communications

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Abstract Kinetic models of enzymes have a long history of use for studying complex metabolic systems and designing production strains. Given the availability of enzyme kinetic data from historical experiments and machine learning estimation tools, a straightforward modeling approach is to assemble kinetic data enzyme by enzyme until a desired scale is reached. However, this type of ‘bottom up’ parameterization of kinetic models has been difficult due to a number of issues including gaps in kinetic parameters, the complexity of enzyme mechanisms, inconsistencies between parameters obtained from different sources, and in vitro-in vivo differences. Here, we present a computational workflow for the robust estimation of kinetic parameters for detailed mass action enzyme models while taking into account parameter uncertainty. The resulting software package, termed MASSef (the Mass Action Stoichiometry Simulation Enzyme Fitting package), can handle standard ‘macroscopic’ kinetic parameters, including K m , k cat , K i , K eq , and n h , as well as diverse reaction mechanisms defined in terms of mass action reactions and ‘microscopic’ rate constants. We provide three enzyme case studies demonstrating that this approach can identify and reconcile inconsistent data either within in vitro experiments or between in vitro and in vivo enzyme function. The code and case studies are provided in the MASSef package built on top of the MASS Toolbox in Mathematica. This work builds on the legacy of knowledge on kinetic behavior of enzymes by enabling robust parameterization of enzyme kinetic models at scale utilizing the abundance of historical literature data and machine learning parameter estimates. Author Summary Detailed kinetic models of metabolism offer the promise of enabling new predictions of metabolic behavior and prospective design of metabolic function. However, parameterizing such models remains a substantial challenge. Historically, the kinetics of many enzymes have been measured using in vitro assays, but integrating this data into consistent large-scale models and filling gaps in available data has been a primary difficulty. Here, we provide an algorithmic approach to parameterize enzyme kinetic models using diverse enzyme kinetic data. The approach reconciles inconsistent data and addresses the issue of gaps in available data implicitly through sampling alternative parameter sets. We provide a number of case studies demonstrating the approach on different enzymes. This work empowers the use of the large amount of historical and machine learning-estimated enzyme data and will aid in the construction of biochemically-accurate models of metabolism.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.mec.2024.e00234

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Authors
Zielinski, D. C., Matos, M. R. A., de Bree, J. E., Glass, K., Sonnenschein, N., & Palsson, B. O.
Affiliations
  • University of California San Diego (US)
  • Novo Nordisk Foundation (DK)
Corresponding author
Palsson, Bernhard O.
Venue
Metabolic Engineering Communications
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2024-06
Volume
18
Pages
e00234
ISSN
2214-0301 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4395031525
Cited by
6
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4
FWCI
0.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Metabolic Engineering Communications (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • Technical University of Denmark, DTU Orbit (Technical University of Denmark, DTU) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
Funders
Novo Nordisk Fonden (NNF20CC0035580, NNF10CC1016517)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Microbial Metabolic Engineering and Bioproduction
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gene Regulatory Network Analysis
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Bioinformatics and Genomic Networks
Keywords
parameter uncertainty, in vitro-in vivo discrepancy, enzyme mechanism, Michaelis constant, Michaelis-Menten kinetics, enzyme inhibition, equilibrium constants, metabolic engineering

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review