ReviewPhilosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences2010
Subcellular metabolic organization in the context of dynamic energy budget and biochemical systems theories.
Review in Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- A network-based analysis of bacterial growth on substrate mixtures uncovers glucose inhibition in Phaeobacter inhibens.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Systems biology of lactic acid bacteria: a critical review.Microbial cell factories · 2011Review
- Modeling antibiotic and cytotoxic effects of the dimeric isoquinoline IQ-143 on metabolism and its regulation in Staphylococcus aureus, Staphylococcus epidermidis and human cells.Genome biology · 2011Article
- Dynamic energy budget theory restores coherence in biology.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2010Review
- Dynamic energy budget approaches for modelling organismal ageing.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2010Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The dynamic modelling of metabolic networks aims to describe the temporal evolution of metabolite concentrations in cells. This area has attracted increasing attention in recent years owing to the availability of high-throughput data and the general development of systems biology as a promising approach to study living organisms. Biochemical Systems Theory (BST) provides an accurate formalism to describe biological dynamic phenomena. However, knowledge about the molecular organization level, used in these models, is not enough to explain phenomena such as the driving forces of these metabolic networks. Dynamic Energy Budget (DEB) theory captures the quantitative aspects of the organization of metabolism at the organism level in a way that is non-species-specific. This imposes constraints on the sub-organismal organization that are not present in the bottom-up approach of systems biology. We use in vivo data of lactic acid bacteria under various conditions to compare some aspects of BST and DEB approaches. Due to the large number of parameters to be estimated in the BST model, we applied powerful parameter identification techniques. Both models fitted equally well, but the BST model employs more parameters. The DEB model uses similarities of processes under growth and no-growth conditions and under aerobic and anaerobic conditions, which reduce the number of parameters. This paper discusses some future directions for the integration of knowledge from these two rich and promising areas, working top-down and bottom-up simultaneously. This middle-out approach is expected to bring new ideas and insights to both areas in terms of describing how living organisms operate.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.