A comparison of Monte Carlo sampling methods for metabolic network models.
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2020
2020
Historique:
received:
02
10
2019
accepted:
15
06
2020
entrez:
2
7
2020
pubmed:
2
7
2020
medline:
10
9
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Reaction rates (fluxes) in a metabolic network can be analyzed using constraint-based modeling which imposes a steady state assumption on the system. In a deterministic formulation of the problem the steady state assumption has to be fulfilled exactly, and the observed fluxes are included in the model without accounting for experimental noise. One can relax the steady state constraint, and also include experimental noise in the model, through a stochastic formulation of the problem. Uniform sampling of fluxes, feasible in both the deterministic and stochastic formulation, can provide us with statistical properties of the metabolic network, such as marginal flux probability distributions. In this study we give an overview of both the deterministic and stochastic formulation of the problem, and of available Monte Carlo sampling methods for sampling the corresponding solution space. We apply the ACHR, OPTGP, CHRR and Gibbs sampling algorithms to ten metabolic networks and evaluate their convergence, consistency and efficiency. The coordinate hit-and-run with rounding (CHRR) is found to perform best among the algorithms suitable for the deterministic formulation. A desirable property of CHRR is its guaranteed distributional convergence. Among the three other algorithms, ACHR has the largest consistency with CHRR for genome scale models. For the stochastic formulation, the Gibbs sampler is the only method appropriate for sampling at genome scale. However, our analysis ranks it as less efficient than the samplers used for the deterministic formulation.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32609776
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0235393
pii: PONE-D-19-27482
pmc: PMC7329079
doi:
Banques de données
figshare
['10.6084/m9.figshare.12356258', '10.6084/M9.figshare.12356318']
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0235393Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
Nature. 2004 Feb 26;427(6977):839-43
pubmed: 14985762
PLoS One. 2015 Apr 07;10(4):e0122670
pubmed: 25849140
Sci Rep. 2017 Mar 21;7(1):268
pubmed: 28325918
PLoS One. 2014 Feb 14;9(2):e86587
pubmed: 24551039
Bioinformatics. 2017 Jun 1;33(11):1741-1743
pubmed: 28158334
IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell. 1984 Jun;6(6):721-41
pubmed: 22499653
J Theor Biol. 2004 Jun 21;228(4):437-47
pubmed: 15178193
Biotechnol Biofuels. 2016 Jun 28;9:132
pubmed: 27354857
BMC Syst Biol. 2013 Aug 08;7:74
pubmed: 23927696
Nat Protoc. 2007;2(3):727-38
pubmed: 17406635
Bioinformatics. 2019 Jul 15;35(14):i548-i557
pubmed: 31510676
NPJ Syst Biol Appl. 2019 Sep 2;5:32
pubmed: 31482008
Nucleic Acids Res. 2016 Jan 4;44(D1):D515-22
pubmed: 26476456
Metab Eng. 2003 Oct;5(4):264-76
pubmed: 14642354
Nat Biotechnol. 2010 Mar;28(3):245-8
pubmed: 20212490