Cited by 1,835Microbial Metabolic Engineering and BioproductionGene Regulatory Network AnalysisBioinformatics and Genomic Networks

Quantitative prediction of cellular metabolism with constraint-based models: the COBRA Toolbox v2.0

Open access
Schellenberger, Jan, Que, Richard, Fleming, Ronan M T, Thiele, Ines, Orth, Jeffrey D, Feist, Adam M, Zielinski, Daniel C, Bordbar, Aarash +5 more·2011·Nature Protocols

Abstract

Over the past decade, a growing community of researchers has emerged around the use of constraint-based reconstruction and analysis (COBRA) methods to simulate, analyze and predict a variety of metabolic phenotypes using genome-scale models. The COBRA Toolbox, a MATLAB package for implementing COBRA methods, was presented earlier. Here we present a substantial update of this in silico toolbox. Version 2.0 of the COBRA Toolbox expands the scope of computations by including in silico analysis methods developed since its original release. New functions include (i) network gap filling, (ii) (13)C analysis, (iii) metabolic engineering, (iv) omics-guided analysis and (v) visualization. As with the first version, the COBRA Toolbox reads and writes systems biology markup language-formatted models. In version 2.0, we improved performance, usability and the level of documentation. A suite of test scripts can now be used to learn the core functionality of the toolbox and validate results. This toolbox lowers the barrier of entry to use powerful COBRA methods.

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 · 10.1038/nprot.2011.308

Cites

90 of 90 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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • ecYeast7 is fully compatible with the COBRA toolbox and has similar simulation running times compared to Yeast7, with a standard growth maximization FBA problem solved in 135 ± 7.3 ms versus 138 ± 9.7 ms.

    “Finally, ecYeast7 is fully compatible with the COBRA toolbox (Schellenberger et al, 2011) and has similar simulation running times compared to its metabolic counterpart: A standard growth maximization FBA problem of ecYeast7 is solved in 135 ± 7.3 ms with the Gurobi LP solver in a Windows PC with a 2.1 GHz Intel i7‐4600U two processor, compared to 138 ± 9.7 ms in the case of Yeast7.”

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Schellenberger, J., Que, R., Fleming, R. M. T., Thiele, I., Orth, J. D., Feist, A. M., Zielinski, D. C., Bordbar, A., Lewis, N. E., Rahmanian, S., Kang, J., Hyduke, D. R., & Palsson, B. Ø.
Affiliations
  • University of California San Diego (US)
  • University of Iceland (IS)
Corresponding author
  • Hyduke, Daniel R
  • Palsson, Bernhard Ø
Venue
Nature Protocols
Published
2011-08-04
Volume
6
Issue
9
Pages
1290-1307
ISSN
  • 1750-2799 (ISSN-L)
  • 1754-2189
OpenAlex
W2147472054
Cited by
1,835
References
89
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 25 · 2024: 46 · 2023: 48 · 2022: 53 · 2021: 93 · 2020: 98 · 2019: 146 · 2018: 159 · 2017: 186 · 2016: 151 · 2015: 163 · 2014: 166 · 2013: 134 · 2012: 127
FWCI
66.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Protocols (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Open Repository and Bibliography (University of Luxembourg) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
Funders
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (GM68837-05A1, R01GM068837, R01GM057089, GM057089-11S1)
  • National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (Y1-AI8401-01, Y01 AI008401)
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
COBRA toolbox, constraint-based metabolic modeling, genome-scale metabolic models, metabolic engineering, SBML, metabolic phenotypes
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Software, Computational Biology, Metabolic Networks and Pathways

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