ArticlePLoS computational biology2013
The ability of flux balance analysis to predict evolution of central metabolism scales with the initial distance to the optimum.
Article in PLoS computational biology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 50 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
50 citing papers in PubMed.
- AlphaGEM enables precise genome-scale metabolic modelling by integrating protein structure alignment with deep-learning-based dark metabolism mining.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Hypergraph learning with multi-dimensional metabolite feature extractions and static-dynamic attention mechanisms to fill missing reactions in metabolic networks.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2026Article
- A Novel Topology-Based Candidate Reaction Prediction Approach for Gap-Fillings of Genome-Scale Metabolic Models.Metabolites · 2026Article
- Quantitative principles of microbial metabolism shared across scales.Nature microbiology · 2024Review
- A quantitative description of light-limited cyanobacterial growth using flux balance analysis.PLoS computational biology · 2024Article
- Changing fitness effects of mutations through long-term bacterial evolution.Science (New York, N.Y.) · 2024Article
- Linking genotypic and phenotypic changes in theeLife · 2023Article
- Global epistasis on fitness landscapes.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2023Review
- Review
- Idiosyncratic Purifying Selection on Metabolic Enzymes in the Long-Term Evolution Experiment with Escherichia coli.Genome biology and evolution · 2022Article
- CAM Models: Lessons and Implications for CAM Evolution.Frontiers in plant science · 2022Review
- Diversity begets diversity during community assembly until ecological limits impose a diversity ceiling.Molecular ecology · 2021Article
- gapseq: informed prediction of bacterial metabolic pathways and reconstruction of accurate metabolic models.Genome biology · 2021Article
- Addressing uncertainty in genome-scale metabolic model reconstruction and analysis.Genome biology · 2021Review
- Investigating the Evolution and Development of Biological Systems from the Perspective of Thermo-Kinetics and Systems Theory.Origins of life and evolution of the biosphere : the journal of the International Society for the Study of the Origin of Life · 2020Review
- Metabolic Flux Analysis-Linking Isotope Labeling and Metabolic Fluxes.Metabolites · 2020Review
- Review
- Simulating the evolutionary trajectories of metabolic pathways for insect symbionts in the genusMicrobial genomics · 2020Article
- A model for the interplay between plastic tradeoffs and evolution in changing environments.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2020Article
- Regulatory mechanisms underlying coordination of amino acid and glucose catabolism in Escherichia coli.Nature communications · 2019Article
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
Abstract
The most powerful genome-scale framework to model metabolism, flux balance analysis (FBA), is an evolutionary optimality model. It hypothesizes selection upon a proposed optimality criterion in order to predict the set of internal fluxes that would maximize fitness. Here we present a direct test of the optimality assumption underlying FBA by comparing the central metabolic fluxes predicted by multiple criteria to changes measurable by a (13)C-labeling method for experimentally-evolved strains. We considered datasets for three Escherichia coli evolution experiments that varied in their length, consistency of environment, and initial optimality. For ten populations that were evolved for 50,000 generations in glucose minimal medium, we observed modest changes in relative fluxes that led to small, but significant decreases in optimality and increased the distance to the predicted optimal flux distribution. In contrast, seven populations evolved on the poor substrate lactate for 900 generations collectively became more optimal and had flux distributions that moved toward predictions. For three pairs of central metabolic knockouts evolved on glucose for 600-800 generations, there was a balance between cases where optimality and flux patterns moved toward or away from FBA predictions. Despite this variation in predictability of changes in central metabolism, two generalities emerged. First, improved growth largely derived from evolved increases in the rate of substrate use. Second, FBA predictions bore out well for the two experiments initiated with ancestors with relatively sub-optimal yield, whereas those begun already quite optimal tended to move somewhat away from predictions. These findings suggest that the tradeoff between rate and yield is surprisingly modest. The observed positive correlation between rate and yield when adaptation initiated further from the optimum resulted in the ability of FBA to use stoichiometric constraints to predict the evolution of metabolism despite selection for rate.
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.