ArticlePLoS computational biology2026
Evaluating the limitations of Bayesian metabolic control analysis.
Article in PLoS computational biology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The kynurenine pathway in depression and schizophrenia: convergent signals, divergent states, and clinical signatures.EXCLI journal · 2026Review
- Prediction of non-intuitive metabolic targets with bayesian metabolic control analysis to improve 3-hydroxypropionic acid production inFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Bayesian Metabolic Control Analysis (BMCA) is a promising framework for inferring metabolic control coefficients in data-limited scenarios, combining Bayesian inference with linear-logarithmic (lin-log) rate laws. These metabolic control coefficients quantify how changes in enzyme activities affect steady-state fluxes and metabolite concentrations across a metabolic network. However, its predictive accuracy and limitations remain underexplored. This study systematically evaluates BMCA's ability to infer elasticity values, flux control coefficients (FCC), and concentration control coefficients (CCC) under varying data availability conditions using three synthetic metabolic network models. We demonstrate that BMCA predictions are highly dependent on the inclusion of flux and enzyme concentration data, with the omission of these datasets leading to severe inaccuracies. In our synthetic, enzyme-perturbation datasets, external metabolite concentrations had minimal impact and, in some cases, their exclusion improved predictions; when external-nutrient perturbations were introduced and those concentrations were observed, gains were at most modest. Additionally, we find that posterior estimation with both ADVI and HMC can underestimate large-magnitude elasticities in our synthetic settings, with ADVI showing somewhat higher variance under strong up-regulation; thus, recovering |elasticity| [Formula: see text]1.5 remains challenging regardless of the inference engine. ADVI also fails to accurately infer allosteric interactions, even when regulatory effects are strong. While BMCA maintains reasonable accuracy in partially recovering the rankings of the highest FCC values, its estimates of absolute values remain constrained by prior assumptions and data limitations. Our findings reveal the BMCA algorithm's strengths and weaknesses, providing guidance on its application in metabolic engineering, and highlighting the need for methodological refinements to enhance its predictive capabilities.
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.