4.7 Review

Practical steps to digital organism models, from laboratory model species to 'Crops in silico'

期刊

JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL BOTANY
卷 70, 期 9, 页码 2403-2418

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/jxb/ery435

关键词

Arabidopsis thaliana; biochemical kinetics; community standards; computational modelling; data science; whole-cell modelling

资金

  1. UK Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council [C006658, D019621, F010583, F005237, M017605, M018040]
  2. European Commission (FP7 TiMet) [245143]
  3. BBSRC [iCASE K011294]
  4. CONACYT (Mexico)
  5. BBSRC [BB/M018040/1, BB/M017605/1, BB/L026996/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A recent initiative named 'Crops in silico' proposes that multi-scale models 'have the potential to fill in missing mechanistic details and generate new hypotheses to prioritize directed engineering efforts' in plant science, particularly directed to crop species. To that end, the group called for 'a paradigm shift in plant modelling, from largely isolated efforts to a connected community'. 'Wet' (experimental) research has been especially productive in plant science, since the adoption of Arabidopsis thaliana as a laboratory model species allowed the emergence of an Arabidopsis research community. Parts of this community invested in 'dry' (theoretical) research, under the rubric of Systems Biology. Our past research combined concepts from Systems Biology and crop modelling. Here we outline the approaches that seem most relevant to connected, 'digital organism' initiatives. We illustrate the scale of experimental research required, by collecting the kinetic parameter values that are required for a quantitative, dynamic model of a gene regulatory network. By comparison with the Systems Biology Markup Language (SBML) community, we note computational resources and community structures that will help to realize the potential for plant Systems Biology to connect with a broader crop science community.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据