The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Analysis of optimality in natural and perturbed metabolic networks
Open accessAbstract
An important goal of whole-cell computational modeling is to integrate detailed biochemical information with biological intuition to produce testable predictions. Based on the premise that prokaryotes such as Escherichia coli have maximized their growth performance along evolution, flux balance analysis (FBA) predicts metabolic flux distributions at steady state by using linear programming. Corroborating earlier results, we show that recent intracellular flux data for wild-type E. coli JM101 display excellent agreement with FBA predictions. Although the assumption of optimality for a wild-type bacterium is justifiable, the same argument may not be valid for genetically engineered knockouts or other bacterial strains that were not exposed to long-term evolutionary pressure. We address this point by introducing the method of minimization of metabolic adjustment (MOMA), whereby we test the hypothesis that knockout metabolic fluxes undergo a minimal redistribution with respect to the flux configuration of the wild type. MOMA employs quadratic programming to identify a point in flux space, which is closest to the wild-type point, compatibly with the gene deletion constraint. Comparing MOMA and FBA predictions to experimental flux data for E. coli pyruvate kinase mutant PB25, we find that MOMA displays a significantly higher correlation than FBA. Our method is further supported by experimental data for E. coli knockout growth rates. It can therefore be used for predicting the behavior of perturbed metabolic networks, whose growth performance is in general suboptimal. MOMA and its possible future extensions may be useful in understanding the evolutionary optimization of metabolism.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Network biology: understanding the cell's functional organization
Barabási, A.-L., & Oltvai, Z. N. (2004) · Nature Reviews Genetics · doi:10.1038/nrg1272 · Cited by 7,903
Network medicine: a network-based approach to human disease
Barabási, A.-L., Gulbahce, N., & Loscalzo, J. (2011) · Nature Reviews Genetics · doi:10.1038/nrg2918 · Cited by 5,034
What is flux balance analysis?
Orth, J. D., Thiele, I., & Palsson, B. Ø. (2010) · Nature Biotechnology · doi:10.1038/nbt.1614 · Cited by 3,903
Quantitative prediction of cellular metabolism with constraint-based models: the COBRA Toolbox v2.0
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., et al. (2011) · Nature Protocols · doi:10.1038/nprot.2011.308 · Cited by 1,835
A protocol for generating a high-quality genome-scale metabolic reconstruction
Thiele, I., & Palsson, B. Ø. (2010) · Nature Protocols · doi:10.1038/nprot.2009.203 · Cited by 1,789
Metadata
- Authors
- Segrè, D., Vitkup, D., & Church, G. M.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
- Published
- 2002-11
- Volume
- 99
- Issue
- 23
- Pages
- 15112-15117
- ISSN
- 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
- 1091-6490
- OpenAlex
- W2102164505
- Cited by
- 1,362
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 8.86
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Analysis of optimality in natural and perturbed metabolic networks. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1073/pnas.232349399
- The paper
- Segrè, D., Vitkup, D., & Church, G. M. (2002). Analysis of optimality in natural and perturbed metabolic networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.232349399
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.