↓ Skip to main content

Construction of feasible and accurate kinetic models of metabolism: A Bayesian approach

Overview of attention for article published in Scientific Reports, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
68 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
157 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Construction of feasible and accurate kinetic models of metabolism: A Bayesian approach
Published in
Scientific Reports, July 2016
DOI 10.1038/srep29635
Pubmed ID
Authors

Pedro A. Saa, Lars K. Nielsen

Abstract

Kinetic models are essential to quantitatively understand and predict the behaviour of metabolic networks. Detailed and thermodynamically feasible kinetic models of metabolism are inherently difficult to formulate and fit. They have a large number of heterogeneous parameters, are non-linear and have complex interactions. Many powerful fitting strategies are ruled out by the intractability of the likelihood function. Here, we have developed a computational framework capable of fitting feasible and accurate kinetic models using Approximate Bayesian Computation. This framework readily supports advanced modelling features such as model selection and model-based experimental design. We illustrate this approach on the tightly-regulated mammalian methionine cycle. Sampling from the posterior distribution, the proposed framework generated thermodynamically feasible parameter samples that converged on the true values, and displayed remarkable prediction accuracy in several validation tests. Furthermore, a posteriori analysis of the parameter distributions enabled appraisal of the systems properties of the network (e.g., control structure) and key metabolic regulations. Finally, the framework was used to predict missing allosteric interactions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 157 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Sweden 2 1%
Germany 1 <1%
Taiwan 1 <1%
Unknown 153 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 39 25%
Researcher 22 14%
Student > Master 21 13%
Student > Bachelor 15 10%
Professor 9 6%
Other 29 18%
Unknown 22 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 36 23%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 30 19%
Chemical Engineering 20 13%
Engineering 20 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 3%
Other 18 11%
Unknown 28 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 July 2016.
All research outputs
#18,465,988
of 22,880,691 outputs
Outputs from Scientific Reports
#93,531
of 123,610 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#272,643
of 355,956 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scientific Reports
#2,667
of 3,654 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,880,691 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 123,610 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.2. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 355,956 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3,654 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.