4.7 Article

Using chemical organization theory for model checking

Journal

BIOINFORMATICS
Volume 25, Issue 15, Pages 1915-1922

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btp332

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. German Research Foundation [Di852/4-2]
  2. European Union
  3. NEST [12789]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Motivation: The increasing number and complexity of biomodels makes automatic procedures for checking the models' properties and quality necessary. Approaches like elementary mode analysis, flux balance analysis, deficiency analysis and chemical organization theory (OT) require only the stoichiometric structure of the reaction network for derivation of valuable information. In formalisms like Systems Biology Markup Language (SBML), however, information about the stoichiometric coefficients required for an analysis of chemical organizations can be hidden in kinetic laws. Results: First, we introduce an algorithm that uncovers stoichiometric information that might be hidden in the kinetic laws of a reaction network. This allows us to apply OT to SBML models using modifiers. Second, using the new algorithm, we performed a large-scale analysis of the 185 models contained in the manually curated BioModels Database. We found that for 41 models (22%) the set of organizations changes when modifiers are considered correctly. We discuss one of these models in detail (BIOMD149, a combined model of the ERK- and Wnt-signaling pathways), whose set of organizations drastically changes when modifiers are considered. Third, we found inconsistencies in 5 models (3%) and identified their characteristics. Compared with flux-based methods, OT is able to identify those species and reactions more accurately [in 26 cases (14%)] that can be present in a long-term simulation of the model. We conclude that our approach is a valuable tool that helps to improve the consistency of biomodels and their repositories.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available