2018
DOI: 10.21859/ijb.1684
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Genome-Scale Metabolic Network Models of Bacillus Species Suggest that Model Improvement is Necessary for Biotechnological Applications

Abstract: Background:A genome-scale metabolic network model (GEM) is a mathematical representation of an organism's metabolism. Today, GEMs are popular tools for computationally simulating the biotechnological processes and for predicting biochemical properties of (engineered) strains. Objectives: In the present study, we have evaluated the predictive power of two GEMs, namely iBsu1103 (for Bacillus subtilis 168) and iMZ1055 (for Bacillus megaterium WSH002). Materials and Methods: For comparing the predictive power of B… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

2
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 21 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…16 Later, it was shown that Bacillus GEMs also suffer from the same problem. 17 1.2 Genome-scale-metabolic models for plants…”
Section: Assessing Genome-scale Metabolic Modelsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…16 Later, it was shown that Bacillus GEMs also suffer from the same problem. 17 1.2 Genome-scale-metabolic models for plants…”
Section: Assessing Genome-scale Metabolic Modelsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Finally, the latest model updates ( i Bsu1147 and i Bsu1144) were aiming to optimize the production of relevant added-value compounds including riboflavin, Egl-237, isobutanol, butanodiol, and serine protease. Despite the efforts in the reconstruction of B. subtilis metabolism, it has been recently shown that the current models are far from accurately predicting well-known metabolic traits of this strain [ 16 ]. Overall, any discrepancies with experimental data were mainly due to incorrect or incomplete annotations, missing reactions and/or pathways, and/or inaccurate formulation of the biomass reaction.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%