Acta Scientific Microbiology (ISSN: 2581-3226)

Research Article Volume 6 Issue 3

Consistency between Saccharomyces cerevisiae S288C Genome Scale Models (iND750 and iMM904)

Kwok Ming Wong, Bryan JH Sim and Maurice HT Ling*

School of Applied Sciences, Temasek Polytechnic, Singapore

*Corresponding Author: Maurice HT Ling, School of Applied Sciences, Temasek Polytechnic, Singapore.

Received: January 27, 2023; Published: February 15, 2023

Abstract

Saccharomyces cerevisiae is an important experimental organism for industrial and scientific research with S. cerevisiae S288C as the first eukaryote genome sequenced. Genome-scale metabolic models (GSMs) are computational tools to explore metabolic engineering requirements. Currently, there are 2 major GSMs of S. cerevisiae S288C, iND750 and iMM904, which raises the question of whether they are consistent to each other. Here, we compare iND750 and iMM904 by examining the fluxomic changes resulting from single reaction knockouts. 40.5% to 50.3% (n = 637) of the reactions are common in both GSMs. Of which, 64 (10.0% of common reactions, or between 4.1% and 5.2% of the total reactions in each GSM) reaction knockouts resulted in significant fluxomic changes. This is significantly lower (t = -15.882, df = 30, p-value = 3.82E-16) from expected using randomization test, suggesting that iND750 and iMM904 are likely to be consistent with each other from the perspective of common reactions.

Keywords: Saccharomyces cerevisiae; Genome-scale Metabolic Models (GSMs);

References

  1. Binati RL., et al. “Non-Conventional Yeasts for Food and Additives Production in a Circular Economy Perspective”. FEMS Yeast Research7 (2021): foab052.
  2. Steensels J and Verstrepen KJ. “Taming Wild Yeast: Potential of Conventional and Nonconventional Yeasts in Industrial Fermentations”. Annual Review of Microbiology 68 (2014): 61-80.
  3. Liu Z., et al. “Yeast Synthetic Biology Advances Biofuel Production”. Current Opinion in Microbiology 65 (2022): 33-39.
  4. Lacerda MP., et al. “The Model System Saccharomyces cerevisiae Versus Emerging Non-Model Yeasts for the Production of Biofuels”. Life (Basel, Switzerland)11 (2020): 299.
  5. Landry CR., et al. “Ecological and Evolutionary Genomics of Saccharomyces cerevisiae”. Molecular Ecology3 (2006): 575-591.
  6. Adames NR., et al. “Yeast Genetic Interaction Screens in the Age of CRISPR/Cas”. Current Genetics2 (2019): 307-327.
  7. Mortimer RK and Johnston JR. “Genealogy of Principal Strains of the Yeast Genetic Stock Center”. Genetics1 (1986): 35-43.
  8. Engel SR., et al. “The Reference Genome Sequence of Saccharomyces cerevisiae: Then and Now”. G3 (Bethesda, Md)3 (2014): 389-398.
  9. Goffeau A., et al. “Life with 6000 Genes”. Science5287 (1996): 546, 563-567.
  10. Pretorius IS and Boeke JD. “Yeast 2.0 - Connecting the Dots in the Construction of the World’s First Functional Synthetic Eukaryotic Genome”. FEMS Yeast Research4 (2018): foy032.
  11. Maurer MJ., et al. “Quantitative Trait Loci (QTL)-Guided Metabolic Engineering of a Complex Trait. ACS Synthetic Biology3 (2017): 566-581.
  12. Jacobus AP., et al. “Comparative Genomics Supports That Brazilian Bioethanol Saccharomyces cerevisiae Comprise a Unified Group of Domesticated Strains Related to Cachaça Spirit Yeasts”. Frontiers in Microbiology 12 (2021): 644089.
  13. McIlwain SJ., et al. “Genome Sequence and Analysis of a Stress-Tolerant, Wild-Derived Strain of Saccharomyces cerevisiae Used in Biofuels Research”. G3 (Bethesda, Md)6 (2016): 1757-1766.
  14. Jin X., et al. “Modeling, Design Guidelines, and Detection Limits of Self-Powered Enzymatic Biofuel Cell-Based Sensors”. Biosensors and Bioelectronics 168 (2020): 112493.
  15. Leow S., et al. “A Unified Modeling Framework to Advance Biofuel Production from Microalgae”. Environmental Science and Technology22 (2018): 13591-13599.
  16. Ali H., et al. “CFD and Kinetic-Based Modeling to Optimize the Sparger Design of a Large-Scale Photobioreactor for Scaling up of Biofuel Production”. Biotechnology and Bioengineering9 (2019): 2200-2211.
  17. Pham N., et al. “Genome-Scale Metabolic Modeling Underscores the Potential of Cutaneotrichosporon oleaginosus ATCC 20509 as a Cell Factory for Biofuel Production”. Biotechnology for Biofuels1 (2021): 2.
  18. van Rosmalen RP., et al. “Model Reduction of Genome-Scale Metabolic Models as a Basis for Targeted Kinetic Models”. Metabolic Engineering 64 (2021): 74-84.
  19. Xu C., et al. “Genome-Scale Metabolic Model in Guiding Metabolic Engineering of Microbial Improvement”. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology2 (2013): 519-539.
  20. Kim B., et al. “Applications of Genome-Scale Metabolic Network Model in Metabolic Engineering”. Journal of Industrial Microbiology and Biotechnology3 (2015): 339-348.
  21. Zhang K., et al. “Genome-Scale Metabolic Model of Caldicellulosiruptor bescii Reveals Optimal Metabolic Engineering Strategies for Bio-based Chemical Production”. mSystems3 (2021): e0135120.
  22. Li BT., et al. “Analyzing Transcriptome-Phenotype Correlations”. Encyclopedia of Bioinformatics and Computational Biology (Elsevier) (2019): 819-824.
  23. Jakutis G and Stainier DYR. “Genotype-Phenotype Relationships in the Context of Transcriptional Adaptation and Genetic Robustness”. Annual Review of Genetics1 (2021): 71-91.
  24. Kemble H., et al. “Recent Insights into the Genotype-Phenotype Relationship from Massively Parallel Genetic Assays”. Evolutionary Applications9 (2019): 1721-1742.
  25. Kabimoldayev I., et al. “Basics of Genome-Scale Metabolic Modeling and Applications on C1-Utilization”. FEMS Microbiology Letters20 (2018): fny241.
  26. Cortassa S., et al. “From Metabolomics to Fluxomics: A Computational Procedure to Translate Metabolite Profiles into Metabolic Fluxes”. Biophysical Journal1 (2015): 163-172.
  27. Winter G and Krömer JO. “Fluxomics - Connecting ’Omics Analysis and Phenotypes. Environmental Microbiology7 (2013): 1901-1916.
  28. Babele PK and Young JD. “Applications of Stable Isotope-Based Metabolomics and Fluxomics Toward Synthetic Biology of Cyanobacteria”. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Systems Biology and Medicine3 (2020): e1472.
  29. Duarte NC., et al. “Reconstruction and Validation of Saccharomyces cerevisiae iND750, A Fully Compartmentalized Genome-Scale Metabolic Model”. Genome Research7 (2004): 1298-1309.
  30. Mo ML., et al. “Connecting Extracellular Metabolomic Measurements to Intracellular Flux States in Yeast”. BMC Systems Biology 3 (2009): 37.
  31. Förster J., et al. “Genome-Scale Reconstruction of the Saccharomyces cerevisiae Metabolic Network”. Genome Research2 (2003): 244-253.
  32. Tan FL., et al. “Significant Differences in Media Components and Predicted Growth Rates of 58 Escherichia coli Genome-scale Models”. Acta Scientific Microbiology2 (2022): 56-68.
  33. King ZA., et al. “BiGG Models: A Platform for Integrating, Standardizing and Sharing Genome-Scale Models”. Nucleic Acids ResearchD1 (2016): D515-D522.
  34. Feist AM and Palsson BO. “The Biomass Objective Function”. Current Opinion in Microbiology3 (2010): 344-349.
  35. Orth JD., et al. “What is Flux Balance Analysis?” Nature Biotechnology3 (2010): 245-248.
  36. Cardoso JGR., et al. “Cameo: A Python Library for Computer Aided Metabolic Engineering and Optimization of Cell Factories”. ACS Synthetic Biology4 (2018): 1163-1166.
  37. Ling MH. “AdvanceSyn Toolkit: An Open Source Suite for Model Development and Analysis in Biological Engineering”. MOJ Proteomics and Bioinformatics4 (2020): 83-86.
  38. Castillo S., et al. “Yeast Genome-Scale Metabolic Models for Simulating Genotype-Phenotype Relations. Progress in Molecular and Subcellular Biology 58 (2019): 111-133.
  39. Wee YY., et al. “Genome-Scale Metabolic Model-Based Reactome-Phenome Map of Synechocystis sp. PCC 6803, A Potential Biofuel Producer”. Medicon Microbiology4 (2022): 2-8.
  40. VanderWeele TJ and Mathur MB. “Some Desirable Properties of the Bonferroni Correction: Is the Bonferroni Correction Really So Bad?” American Journal of Epidemiology3 (2019): 617-618.
  41. Hooton JWL. “Randomization Tests: Statistics for Experimenters”. Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine1 (1991): 43-51.
  42. Rodgers JL. “The Bootstrap, the Jackknife, and the Randomization Test: A Sampling Taxonomy”. Multivariate Behavioral Research4 (1999): 441-456.
  43. Chua MT., et al. “Gene Co-Expressions Cannot Predict Protein-Protein Interactions in Escherichia coli”. EC Microbiology3 (2022): 102-109.
  44. Aon M and Cortassa S. “Systems Biology of the Fluxome”. Processes3 (2015): 607-618.
  45. Emwas A-H., et al. “Fluxomics - New Metabolomics Approaches to Monitor Metabolic Pathways. Frontiers in Pharmacology 13 (2022): 805782.
  46. Whelan KE and King RD. “Using a Logical Model to Predict the Growth of Yeast”. BMC Bioinformatics 9 (2008): 97.

Citation

Citation: Maurice HT Ling., et al. “Consistency between Saccharomyces cerevisiae S288C Genome Scale Models (iND750 and iMM904)". Acta Scientific Microbiology 6.3 (2023): 63-68.

Copyright

Copyright: © 2022 Maurice HT Ling., et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.




Metrics

Acceptance rate30%
Acceptance to publication20-30 days

Indexed In






News and Events


Contact US