• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
SRI logo
  • About
    • Press room
    • Our history
  • Expertise
    • Advanced imaging systems
    • Artificial intelligence
    • Biomedical R&D services
    • Biomedical sciences
    • Computer vision
    • Cyber & formal methods
    • Education and learning
    • Innovation strategy and policy
    • National security
    • Ocean & space
    • Quantum
    • QED-C
    • Robotics, sensors & devices
    • Speech & natural language
    • Video test & measurement
  • Ventures
  • NSIC
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • 日本支社
Search
Close
Artificial intelligence publications January 1, 2018

Evaluation of reaction gap-filling accuracy by randomization

SRI authors: Mario Latendresse, Peter Karp

Citation

Copy to clipboard


Latendresse M., & Karp P.D. (2018) Evaluation of reaction gap-filling accuracy by randomization. BMC Bioinformatics. 19(1):53. DOI: 10.1186/s12859-018-2050-4.

Abstract

Completion of genome-scale flux-balance models using computational reaction gap-filling is a widely used approach, but its accuracy is not well known.

We report on computational experiments of reaction gap filling in which we generated degraded versions of the EcoCyc-20.0-GEM model by randomly removing flux-carrying reactions from a growing model. We gap-filled the degraded models and compared the resulting gap-filled models with the original model. Gap-filling was performed by the Pathway Tools MetaFlux software using its General Development Mode (GenDev) and its Fast Development Mode (FastDev). We explored 12 GenDev variants including two linear solvers (SCIP and CPLEX) for solving the Mixed Integer Linear Programming (MILP) problems for gap filling; three different sets of linear constraints were applied; and two MILP methods were implemented. We compared these 13 variants according to accuracy, speed, and amount of information returned to the user.

We observed large variation among the performance of the 13 gap-filling variants. Although no variant was best in all dimensions, we found one variant that was fast, accurate, and returned more information to the user. Some gap-filling variants were inaccurate, producing solutions that were non-minimum or invalid (did not enable model growth). The best GenDev variant showed a best average precision of 87% and a best average recall of 61%. FastDev showed an average precision of 71% and an average recall of 59%. Thus, using the most accurate variant, approximately 13% of the gap-filled reactions were incorrect (were not the reactions removed from the model), and 39% of gap-filled reactions were not found, suggesting that curation is still an important aspect of metabolic-model development.

↓ Download

Share this

How can we help?

Once you hit send…

We’ll match your inquiry to the person who can best help you.

Expect a response within 48 hours.

Career call to action image

Make your own mark.

Search jobs

Our work

Case studies

Publications

Timeline of innovation

Areas of expertise

Institute

Leadership

Press room

Media inquiries

Compliance

Careers

Job listings

Contact

SRI Ventures

Our locations

Headquarters

333 Ravenswood Ave
Menlo Park, CA 94025 USA

+1 (650) 859-2000

Subscribe to our newsletter


日本支社
SRI International
  • Contact us
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookies
  • DMCA
  • Copyright © 2022 SRI International