Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34209357›Full record

ArticleMetabolites2021

Hierarchical Harmonization of Atom-Resolved Metabolic Reactions across Metabolic Databases.

Huan Jin, Hunter N B Moseley

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Metabolites, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

2 authors.

Huan JinDepartment of Toxicology and Cancer Biology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40536, USA.
Hunter N B MoseleyDepartment of Molecular & Cellular Biochemistry, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40536, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3995-5368

Funding

National Science Foundation 2020026
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Metabolic models have been proven to be useful tools in system biology and have been successfully applied to various research fields in a wide range of organisms. A relatively complete metabolic network is a prerequisite for deriving reliable metabolic models. The first step in constructing metabolic network is to harmonize compounds and reactions across different metabolic databases. However, effectively integrating data from various sources still remains a big challenge. Incomplete and inconsistent atomistic details in compound representations across databases is a very important limiting factor. Here, we optimized a subgraph isomorphism detection algorithm to validate generic compound pairs. Moreover, we defined a set of harmonization relationship types between compounds to deal with inconsistent chemical details while successfully capturing atom-level characteristics, enabling a more complete enabling compound harmonization across metabolic databases. In total, 15,704 compound pairs across KEGG (Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes) and MetaCyc databases were detected. Furthermore, utilizing the classification of compound pairs and EC (Enzyme Commission) numbers of reactions, we established hierarchical relationships between metabolic reactions, enabling the harmonization of 3856 reaction pairs. In addition, we created and used atom-specific identifiers to evaluate the consistency of atom mappings within and between harmonized reactions, detecting some consistency issues between the reaction and compound descriptions in these metabolic databases.

Indexed as

compound harmonizationmetabolic modelmetabolic networkmetabolitereaction harmonizationsubgraph isomorphism

Identifiers

PMID34209357
PMCPMC8307411

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.