Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16524836›Full record

ReviewPhilosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences2006

From genomes to systems: the path with yeast.

Stephen G Oliver

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Progress in metabolic engineering of Saccharomyces cerevisiae.Microbiology and molecular biology reviews : MMBR · 2008
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Introduction. Bioinformatics: from molecules to systems.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2006
    Article
  7. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Stephen G OliverFaculty of Life Sciences, The University of Manchester, Michael Smith Building, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PT, UK. steve.oliver@manchester.ac.uk

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council E19354Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Metabolic Control Analysis (MCA) is a conceptual and mathematical formalism that models the relative contributions of individual effectors in a pathway to both the flux through the pathway and the concentrations of individual intermediates within it. To exploit MCA in an initial Systems Biology analysis of the eukaryotic cell, two categories of experiments are required. In category 1 experiments, flux is changed and the impact on the levels of the direct and indirect products of gene action is measured. We have measured the impact of changing the flux on the transcriptome, proteome and metabolome of Saccharomyces cerevisiae. In this whole-cell analysis, flux equates to growth rate. In category 2 experiments, the levels of individual gene products are altered, and the impact on the flux is measured. We have used competition analyses between the complete set of heterozygous yeast deletion mutants to reveal genes encoding proteins with high flux control coefficients. These genes may be exploited, in a top-down analysis, to build a coarse-grained model of the eukaryotic cell, as exemplified by yeast. More detailed modelling requires that 'natural' biological systems be identified. The combination of flux balance analysis with both genetics and metabolomics in the definition of metabolic systems is discussed.

Indexed as

Computational BiologyGenome, FungalSystems BiologySaccharomyces cerevisiaeSaccharomyces cerevisiae ProteinsSaccharomyces cerevisiae Proteins

Identifiers

PMID16524836
PMCPMC1609341

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.