ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2024
Semi-Automatic Detection of Errors in Genome-Scale Metabolic Models.
Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Genome-Scale Metabolic Models (GSMMs) are used for numerous tasks requiring computational estimates of metabolic fluxes, from predicting novel drug targets to engineering microbes to produce valuable compounds. A key limiting step in most applications of GSMMs is ensuring their representation of the target organism's metabolism is complete and accurate. Identifying and visualizing errors in GSMMs is complicated by the fact that they contain thousands of densely interconnected reactions. Furthermore, many errors in GSMMs only become apparent when considering pathways of connected reactions collectively, as opposed to examining reactions individually. Results: We present Metabolic Accuracy Check and Analysis Workflow (MACAW), a collection of algorithms for detecting errors in GSMMs. The relative frequencies of errors we detect in manually curated GSMMs appear to reflect the different approaches used to curate them. Changing the method used to automatically create a GSMM from a particular organism's genome can have a larger impact on the kinds of errors in the resulting GSMM than using the same method with a different organism's genome. Our algorithms are particularly capable of identifying errors that are only apparent at the pathway level, including loops, and nontrivial cases of dead ends. Conclusions: MACAW is capable of identifying inaccuracies of varying severity in a wide range of GSMMs. Correcting these errors can measurably improve the predictive capacity of a GSMM. The relative prevalence of each type of error we identify in a large collection of GSMMs could help shape future efforts for further automation of error correction and GSMM creation.
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.