ArticleBMC bioinformatics2026
Selecting methods for draft GEM generation in multicellular eukaryotes: a comparative analysis.
Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2026. 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
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Motivated by the applications of genome-scale metabolic models (GEMs) for biological discovery and metabolic engineering, several approaches have been developed for automatic generation of draft GEMs. However, most of these methods are not optimized for their use in multicellular eukaryotes and their performance for this task is unclear. In this work we present a comparative analysis of seven automated reconstruction tools (AuReMe, CarveMe, merlin, ModelSEED, Pathway Tools, RAVEN and Reconstructor) applied to three multicellular eukaryotes: the mosquito Aedes aegypti, the CHO (Chinese Hamster Ovary) cell line from Cricetulus griseus and the brown algae Ectocarpus siliculosus. Evaluation of these tools was based on metrics for network size, functionality, consistency, representation of organelle-specific functions and organism-specific metabolites, annotation quality and execution time. We find that methods differ strongly in a trade-off between model functionality and representation of eukaryotic features such as compartmentalization and organism-specific metabolism, with no single approach excelling at both. Our work aims at providing a practical resource to guide researchers in selecting methods for draft generation tailored to organism characteristics and research goals.
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.