iMM1865: A New Reconstruction of Mouse Genome-Scale Metabolic Model.
Journal
Scientific reports
ISSN: 2045-2322
Titre abrégé: Sci Rep
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101563288
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 04 2020
10 04 2020
Historique:
received:
10
09
2019
accepted:
26
03
2020
entrez:
12
4
2020
pubmed:
12
4
2020
medline:
15
12
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Since the first in silico generation of a genome-scale metabolic (GSM) model for Haemophilus influenzae in 1999, the GSM models have been reconstructed for various organisms including human and mouse. There are two important strategies for generating a GSM model: in the bottom-up approach, individual genomic and biochemical components are integrated to build a GSM model. Alternatively, the orthology-based strategy uses a previously reconstructed model of a reference organism to infer a GSM model of a target organism. Following the update and development of the metabolic network of reference organism, the model of the target organism can also be updated to eliminate defects. Here, we presented iMM1865 model as an orthology-based reconstruction of a GSM model for Mus musculus based on the last flux-consistent version of the human metabolic network, Recon3D. We proposed two versions of the new mouse model, iMM1865 and min-iMM1865, with the same number of gene-associated reactions but different subsets of non-gene-associated reactions. A third extended but flux-inconsistent model (iMM3254) was also created based on the extended version of Recon3D. Compared to the previously published mouse models, both versions of iMM1865 include more comprehensive annotations of metabolites and reactions with no dead-end metabolites and blocked reactions. We evaluated functionality of the models using 431 metabolic objective functions. iMM1865 and min-iMM1865 passed 93% and 87% of the tests, respectively, while iMM1415 and MMR (another available mouse GSM) passed 80% and 84% of the tests, respectively. Three versions of tissue-specific embryo heart models were also reconstructed from each of iMM1865 and min-iMM1865 using mCADRE algorithm with different thresholds on expression-based scores. The ability of corresponding GSM and embryo heart models to predict essential genes was assessed across experimentally derived lethal and viable gene sets. Our analysis revealed that tissue-specific models render much better predictions than GSM models.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32277147
doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-63235-w
pii: 10.1038/s41598-020-63235-w
pmc: PMC7148337
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
6177Références
Nat Rev Microbiol. 2009 Feb;7(2):129-43
pubmed: 19116616
Nat Commun. 2014;5:3083
pubmed: 24419221
Bioinformatics. 2014 Sep 1;30(17):2529-31
pubmed: 24812336
Mol Syst Biol. 2007;3:135
pubmed: 17882155
Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2007 Aug 24;360(2):501-6
pubmed: 17603008
J Cheminform. 2014 Jan 27;6(1):2
pubmed: 24468196
Mol Syst Biol. 2013;9:649
pubmed: 23511207
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2002 Nov 12;99(23):15112-7
pubmed: 12415116
Mol Syst Biol. 2011 Jun 21;7:501
pubmed: 21694718
Genome Inform. 2008;21:89-100
pubmed: 19425150
Nat Commun. 2017 Feb 08;8:14250
pubmed: 28176778
Integr Biol (Camb). 2015 Aug;7(8):859-68
pubmed: 25730289
BMC Syst Biol. 2012 Dec 13;6:153
pubmed: 23234303
Nat Protoc. 2010 Jan;5(1):93-121
pubmed: 20057383
Nucleic Acids Res. 2002 Jan 1;30(1):47-9
pubmed: 11752250
Mol Syst Biol. 2014 Mar 19;10:721
pubmed: 24646661
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007 Feb 6;104(6):1777-82
pubmed: 17267599
J Invest Dermatol. 2006 Sep;126(9):2087-95
pubmed: 16741517
Nucleic Acids Res. 2002 Jan 1;30(1):207-10
pubmed: 11752295
Nucleic Acids Res. 2019 Jan 8;47(D1):D590-D595
pubmed: 30321428
PLoS Comput Biol. 2008 May 16;4(5):e1000082
pubmed: 18483554
BMC Syst Biol. 2013 Nov 01;7:116
pubmed: 24180668
PLoS Comput Biol. 2014 Jan;10(1):e1003424
pubmed: 24453953
Nat Neurosci. 2008 Nov;11(11):1271-82
pubmed: 18849986
PLoS Comput Biol. 2012;8(5):e1002518
pubmed: 22615553
Clin Chem. 1967 Mar;13(3):196-203
pubmed: 6018717
J Intern Med. 2012 Feb;271(2):131-41
pubmed: 22142339
J Biol Chem. 2004 May 14;279(20):20850-7
pubmed: 14998997
BMC Genet. 2002 Oct 2;3:18
pubmed: 12361482
Nat Protoc. 2019 Mar;14(3):639-702
pubmed: 30787451
Cell Rep. 2015 May 12;11(6):921-933
pubmed: 25937284
BMC Syst Biol. 2010 Oct 19;4:140
pubmed: 20959003
Nucleic Acids Res. 2017 Jan 4;45(D1):D353-D361
pubmed: 27899662
Bioinformatics. 2002 Dec;18(12):1585-92
pubmed: 12490442
Biochem Genet. 2013 Jun;51(5-6):413-25
pubmed: 23404229
Nature. 2016 Sep 22;537(7621):508-514
pubmed: 27626380
Sci Rep. 2015 Jun 04;5:10738
pubmed: 26040780
Sci Rep. 2014 Jan 29;4:3925
pubmed: 24473230
Biochem J. 2006 Nov 15;400(1):163-8
pubmed: 16842238
J Biol Chem. 2012 Aug 17;287(34):28865-81
pubmed: 22692205
Mol Biosyst. 2010 Jan;6(1):152-61
pubmed: 20024077
Nucleic Acids Res. 2016 Jan 4;44(D1):D471-80
pubmed: 26527732
Genomics. 2004 Mar;83(3):482-92
pubmed: 14962674
Curr Opin Biotechnol. 2014 Oct;29:39-45
pubmed: 24632194
Metab Eng. 2003 Oct;5(4):264-76
pubmed: 14642354
Nat Biotechnol. 2010 Mar;28(3):245-8
pubmed: 20212490
Nat Biotechnol. 2018 Mar;36(3):272-281
pubmed: 29457794
Am J Clin Nutr. 1991 Dec;54(6 Suppl):1203S-1208S
pubmed: 1962571
Nucleic Acids Res. 2000 Jan 1;28(1):27-30
pubmed: 10592173
Mol Syst Biol. 2015 Oct 16;11(10):834
pubmed: 26475342
Mol Syst Biol. 2010 Sep 7;6:411
pubmed: 20823849
BMC Bioinformatics. 2010 Sep 29;11:489
pubmed: 20920235
J Struct Biol. 2015 Dec;192(3):510-518
pubmed: 26492815
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1998 Sep 29;95(20):11751-6
pubmed: 9751737
PLoS Comput Biol. 2010 Sep 23;6(9):e1000938
pubmed: 20957118
Cell. 2015 May 21;161(5):971-987
pubmed: 26000478