Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27200014›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in plant science2016

Flux Balance Analysis of Plant Metabolism: The Effect of Biomass Composition and Model Structure on Model Predictions.

Huili Yuan, C Y Maurice Cheung, Peter A J Hilbers, Natal A W van Riel

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in plant science, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing 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

27 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Dynamic Constrained Allocation Flux Balance Analysis (dCAFBA).Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2026
    Article
  5. Unveiling organ-specific metabolism ofProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

4 authors.

Huili YuanDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology Eindhoven, Netherlands.
C Y Maurice CheungYale-NUS College Singapore, Singapore.
Peter A J HilbersDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Eindhoven University of TechnologyEindhoven, Netherlands; Institute for Complex Molecular Systems, Eindhoven University of TechnologyEindhoven, Netherlands.
Natal A W van RielDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Eindhoven University of TechnologyEindhoven, Netherlands; Institute for Complex Molecular Systems, Eindhoven University of TechnologyEindhoven, Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The biomass composition represented in constraint-based metabolic models is a key component for predicting cellular metabolism using flux balance analysis (FBA). Despite major advances in analytical technologies, it is often challenging to obtain a detailed composition of all major biomass components experimentally. Studies examining the influence of the biomass composition on the predictions of metabolic models have so far mostly been done on models of microorganisms. Little is known about the impact of varying biomass composition on flux prediction in FBA models of plants, whose metabolism is very versatile and complex because of the presence of multiple subcellular compartments. Also, the published metabolic models of plants differ in size and complexity. In this study, we examined the sensitivity of the predicted fluxes of plant metabolic models to biomass composition and model structure. These questions were addressed by evaluating the sensitivity of predictions of growth rates and central carbon metabolic fluxes to varying biomass compositions in three different genome-/large-scale metabolic models of Arabidopsis thaliana. Our results showed that fluxes through the central carbon metabolism were robust to changes in biomass composition. Nevertheless, comparisons between the predictions from three models using identical modeling constraints and objective function showed that model predictions were sensitive to the structure of the models, highlighting large discrepancies between the published models.

Indexed as

Arabidopsisbiomass compositioncentral carbon metabolismflux balance analysislarge-scale metabolic modelmodel structuresensitivity

Identifiers

PMID27200014
PMCPMC4845513

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.