ArticleBioinformatics (Oxford, England)2016
Exact quantification of cellular robustness in genome-scale metabolic networks.
Article in Bioinformatics (Oxford, England), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Unveiling the link between phytoplankton molecular physiology and biogeochemical cycling via genome-scale modeling.Science advances · 2025Article
- Minimal cut sets in metabolic networks: from conceptual foundations to applications in metabolic engineering and biomedicine.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2025Review
- Environmental flexibility does not explain metabolic robustness.NPJ systems biology and applications · 2020Article
- Speeding up the core algorithm for the dual calculation of minimal cut sets in large metabolic networks.BMC bioinformatics · 2020Article
- Stoichiometric Representation of Gene-Protein-Reaction Associations Leverages Constraint-Based Analysis from Reaction to Gene-Level Phenotype Prediction.PLoS computational biology · 2016Article
- Which sets of elementary flux modes form thermodynamically feasible flux distributions?The FEBS journal · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
motivationRobustness, the ability of biological networks to uphold their functionality in spite of perturbations, is a key characteristic of all living systems. Although several theoretical approaches have been developed to formalize robustness, it still eludes an exact quantification. Here, we present a rigorous and quantitative approach for the structural robustness of metabolic networks by measuring their ability to tolerate random reaction (or gene) knockouts.
resultsIn analogy to reliability theory, based on an explicit consideration of all possible knockout sets, we exactly quantify the probability of failure for a given network function (e.g. growth). This measure can be computed if the network's minimal cut sets (MSCs) are known. We show that even in genome-scale metabolic networks the probability of (network) failure can be reliably estimated from MSCs with lowest cardinalities. We demonstrate the applicability of our theory by analyzing the structural robustness of multiple Enterobacteriaceae and Blattibacteriaceae and show a dramatically low structural robustness for the latter. We find that structural robustness develops from the ability to proliferate in multiple growth environments consistent with experimentally found knowledge.
conclusionThe probability of (network) failure provides thus a reliable and easily computable measure of structural robustness and redundancy in (genome-scale) metabolic networks. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: Source code is available under the GNU General Public License at https://github.com/mpgerstl/networkRobustnessToolbox CONTACT: juergen.zanghellini@boku.ac.at SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.
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.