Assessing Escherichia coli metabolism models and simulation approaches in phenotype predictions: Validation against...

Over the last years, several genome-scale metabolic models (GEMs) and kinetic models of Escherichia coli were published. Their predictive performance varies according to the evaluation metric considered, the computational simulation methods used, and the type/quality of experimental data available. However, the GEM approach is often not compared with the kinetic modeling framework. Also, the different genome-scale reconstruction versions and simulation methods of mutant phenotypes are usually not validated to predict intracellular fluxes using large experimental datasets. Here, we intended to (i) systematically evaluate the prediction performance of three E. coli GEMs (iJR904, iAF1260, and iJO1366) available in the literature according to predictive growth metrics (intracellular flux distribution); (ii) assess the reliability of a E. coli GEM in the prediction of gene knockout phenotypes when different simulation methods (parsimonious flux balance analysis, Minimization of Metabolic Adjustment, linear version of MoMA, Regulatory on/off minimization, and Minimization of Metabolites Balance) are used; and finally (iii) investigate the flux distribution predictive power of the constrained-based modeling approach (selected stoichiometric GEM) and compare it with the kinetic modeling approach (two published kinetic models) for E. coli central metabolism, in order to assess their accuracy. Results show that the phenotype predictions were not significantly sensitive to the metabolic models, although the GEM iAF1260 was more accurate in the prediction of central carbon fluxes at low dilution rates. Furthermore, we observed that the choice of the appropriate simulation method of mutant phenotypes depends on the biological question to be addressed. In terms of the two modeling approaches, none outperformed the other for all the tested scenarios. © 2018 American Institute of Chemical Engineers Biotechnol. Prog., 34:1344-1354, 2018.