Cited by 304Microbial Metabolic Engineering and BioproductionGene Regulatory Network AnalysisBioinformatics and Genomic Networks

Reconstructing organisms in silico: genome-scale models and their emerging applications

Open access
Fang, Xin, Lloyd, Colton J., Palsson, Bernhard O.·2020·Nature Reviews Microbiology

Abstract

Escherichia coli is considered to be the best-known microorganism given the large number of published studies detailing its genes, its genome and the biochemical functions of its molecular components. This vast literature has been systematically assembled into a reconstruction of the biochemical reaction networks that underlie E. coli's functions, a process which is now being applied to an increasing number of microorganisms. Genome-scale reconstructed networks are organized and systematized knowledge bases that have multiple uses, including conversion into computational models that interpret and predict phenotypic states and the consequences of environmental and genetic perturbations. These genome-scale models (GEMs) now enable us to develop pan-genome analyses that provide mechanistic insights, detail the selection pressures on proteome allocation and address stress phenotypes. In this Review, we first discuss the overall development of GEMs and their applications. Next, we review the evolution of the most complete GEM that has been developed to date: the E. coli GEM. Finally, we explore three emerging areas in genome-scale modelling of microbial phenotypes: collections of strain-specific models, metabolic and macromolecular expression models, and simulation of stress responses.

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/s41579-020-00440-4

Cites

144 of 144 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?

  • Combinatorial multiplexing experiments remain prohibitively expensive and technically challenging to scale.

    “Furthermore, combinatorial multiplexing experiments remain prohibitively expensive and technically challenging to scale (7, 8).”

    From A systematic comparison of single-cell perturbation response prediction models (2026) · cites this paper as [7]

    The Emerging applications of GEMs section discusses multi-strain analysis and bottlenecks in constructing computational models, not the cost or scalability of combinatorial multiplexing experiments. Searches for multiplexing and for the expense and technical difficulty of combinatorial experiments found no passage addressing the claim. (LLM, conf=0.74)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [130]Mayr E This is Biology: The Science of the Living World (Harvard University Press, 1998).
  2. [131]Palsson B Systems Biology (Cambridge University Press, 2015).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Fang, X., Lloyd, C. J., & Palsson, B. O.
Affiliations
University of California San Diego (US)
Venue
Nature Reviews Microbiology
Published
2020-09-21
Volume
18
Issue
12
Pages
731-743
ISSN
  • 1740-1526 (ISSN-L)
  • 1740-1534
OpenAlex
W3087744872
Cited by
292
References
142
Citations by year
2026: 34 · 2025: 49 · 2024: 66 · 2023: 60 · 2022: 35 · 2021: 47 · 2020: 1
FWCI
3.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Reviews Microbiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
  • Technical University of Denmark, DTU Orbit (Technical University of Denmark, DTU) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
National Institute of General Medical Sciences (R01GM057089)
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
genome-scale metabolic models, Escherichia coli, metabolic network reconstruction, pangenome analysis, proteome allocation, phenotype prediction
MeSH terms
Firmicutes, Bacillota, Whole Genome Sequencing, Thermotoga, Cyanobacteria, Computer Simulation, Escherichia coli, Models, Genetic, Phenotype, Stress, Physiological, Genome, Bacterial, Proteobacteria, Genomics, Actinobacteria, Gene Regulatory Networks, 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