pith. sign in

arxiv: 2511.03483 · v2 · pith:KJCXVNRAnew · submitted 2025-11-05 · 🧬 q-bio.MN

A Gene Ranking Framework Enhances the Design Efficiency of Genome-Scale Constraint-Based Metabolic Networks under Time Limits

Yier Ma , Takeyuki Tamura This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-21 20:17 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🧬 q-bio.MN
keywords gene rankingMILPconstraint-based metabolic modelsgrowth-coupled productiongenome-scale networksdesign efficiencybranch-and-bound
0
0 comments X

The pith

Ranking genes by importance lets metabolic network designs succeed more often by solving smaller subproblems in parallel.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper develops a method that first scores genes for their likely impact on finding feasible designs in genome-scale metabolic models. It then fixes the states of the highest-ranked genes and splits the original mixed-integer linear programming task into smaller, non-overlapping subproblems that run concurrently. This recovers nearly all solutions found by the standard approach while raising the fraction of successful designs by 37 to 186 percent inside the same time budget. The gain comes from smaller search spaces and fewer branch-and-bound nodes. The ranking step can be inserted into other MILP-based design pipelines without changing their core logic.

Core claim

Pre-assigning states to genes ranked by importance decomposes the original MILP into mutually exclusive subproblems that are solved in parallel, recovering most successful growth-coupled designs while increasing the success rate 37 to 186 percent within fixed time limits and reducing both subproblem size and the number of nodes explored in the branch-and-bound tree.

What carries the argument

The gene ranking procedure that scores individual genes so their pre-assigned values can safely reduce the original MILP to a set of smaller, disjoint subproblems solved concurrently.

If this is right

  • More growth-coupled production designs finish before the time limit expires.
  • The branch-and-bound search tree shrinks because subproblems are smaller.
  • Parallel execution becomes practical on standard multi-core hardware.
  • The same ranking step can be added to other MILP solvers used for metabolic engineering.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The ranking could be reused as a preprocessing step for any large-scale MILP that involves binary variables tied to biological entities.
  • Combining the ranking with warm-start heuristics might further cut solution times on very large networks.
  • The method's success on metabolic models suggests it may help similar design problems in synthetic biology where time-bounded optimization is common.

Load-bearing premise

That a gene ranking procedure can reliably identify genes whose pre-assigned values do not eliminate feasible or optimal solutions to the original MILP.

What would settle it

Apply the ranking framework to a new collection of genome-scale models, run both the original and ranked versions under identical time caps, and check whether the ranked version misses any known optimal designs or falls below the original success count.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.03483 by Takeyuki Tamura, Yier Ma.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: An example of a constraint-based metabolic network. 𝑟1 to 𝑟12 are reactions, 𝑚1 to 𝑚9 are metabolites and 𝑔1 to 𝑔5 are genes. The intervals marked next to reactions are the lower and upper bounds for reactions. A negative lower bound indicates a reversible reaction. Three valid GPR associations are embedded in this network. 𝑟1 corresponds to the substrate uptake reaction, 𝑟12 to the biomass reaction. 𝑚8 is… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The design of genome-scale constraint-based metabolic networks has steadily advanced, with an increasing number of successful cases achieving growth-coupled production, in which the biosynthesis of key metabolites is linked to cell growth. However, a major cause of design failures is the inability to find solutions within realistic time limits. Therefore, it is essential to develop methods that achieve a high success rate within the specified computation time. In this study, we propose a framework for ranking the importance of individual genes to accelerate the solution of the original mixed-integer linear programming (MILP) problems in the design of constraint-based models. In the proposed method, after pre-assigning values to highly important genes, the MILPs are solved in parallel as a series of mutually exclusive subproblems. It is found that our framework was able to recover most of the successful cases identified by the original approach and achieved a 37% to 186% increase in success rate compared to the original method within the same time limits. Analysis of the MILP solution process revealed that the proposed method reduced the sizes of subproblems and decreased the number of nodes in the branch-and-bound tree. This framework for ranking gene importance can be directly applicable to a range of MILP-based algorithms for the design of constraint-based metabolic networks. The developed scripts are available on \href{https://github.com/MetNetComp/Gene-Ranked-RatGene}{https://github.com/MetNetComp/Gene-Ranked-RatGene}.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a gene-ranking framework to accelerate MILP-based design of growth-coupled production in genome-scale constraint-based metabolic models. After ranking genes by importance, fixed 0/1 values are pre-assigned to the highest-ranked genes; the resulting MILPs are decomposed into mutually exclusive subproblems that are solved in parallel. The authors report that the framework recovers most successes found by the unmodified approach and achieves 37–186% higher success rates within identical time limits, accompanied by reductions in subproblem size and branch-and-bound nodes explored.

Significance. If the pre-assignment step can be shown to preserve the feasible and optimal solution sets of the original MILP, the framework would provide a practical, reusable way to raise success rates for computationally demanding strain-design problems that frequently time out. The open-source implementation on GitHub is a clear positive for reproducibility.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the headline claim of 37% to 186% success-rate gains is presented without stating the number of models tested, the precise ranking algorithm, the importance threshold used, or any statistical test for significance; these omissions make it impossible to judge whether the reported percentages are robust or affected by post-hoc parameter choices.
  2. [Abstract and method description] The central efficiency argument rests on pre-assigning fixed values to ranked genes and thereby shrinking the branch-and-bound tree. No formal argument or small-model exhaustive enumeration is supplied to demonstrate that these fixes never eliminate a growth-coupled design that the unmodified MILP would have found; because the performance comparison is made under identical time limits, any undetected loss of solutions directly undermines the attribution of the observed gains to the framework rather than to an altered search space.
  3. [Results] The manuscript states that “most” original successes are recovered but supplies neither a quantitative breakdown (e.g., fraction recovered per model) nor a sensitivity analysis with respect to the importance threshold; without this, it is unclear whether the method systematically trades solution completeness for speed.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Methods] The exact definition of the gene-importance ranking criterion and the procedure for choosing the pre-assignment threshold should be stated explicitly, preferably with pseudocode or a dedicated subsection.
  2. [Figures and Tables] Figure legends and table captions should clarify whether the reported node counts and success rates are averaged over multiple random seeds or single runs.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the thoughtful and constructive comments on our manuscript. We have carefully considered each point and provide detailed responses below. Where appropriate, we will revise the manuscript to address the concerns raised.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the headline claim of 37% to 186% success-rate gains is presented without stating the number of models tested, the precise ranking algorithm, the importance threshold used, or any statistical test for significance; these omissions make it impossible to judge whether the reported percentages are robust or affected by post-hoc parameter choices.

    Authors: We agree that additional details in the abstract would improve clarity. In the revised version, we will update the abstract to specify that the framework was tested on multiple genome-scale models (details provided in the Methods section), describe the gene ranking approach based on a combination of flux variability and essentiality metrics, indicate the importance threshold for pre-assignment, and note that the success rate improvements were consistent across the tested instances. We will also clarify that the reported range reflects variation across different models and time limits rather than post-hoc selection. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract and method description] The central efficiency argument rests on pre-assigning fixed values to ranked genes and thereby shrinking the branch-and-bound tree. No formal argument or small-model exhaustive enumeration is supplied to demonstrate that these fixes never eliminate a growth-coupled design that the unmodified MILP would have found; because the performance comparison is made under identical time limits, any undetected loss of solutions directly undermines the attribution of the observed gains to the framework rather than to an altered search space.

    Authors: This is a valid concern. While we demonstrate in the Results that the framework recovers most of the successful designs found by the original MILP, we acknowledge the absence of a formal guarantee or exhaustive verification on small models. To address this, we will add a new subsection in the Methods or Results describing exhaustive enumeration on a small-scale metabolic model (e.g., a toy network with known optimal solutions) to confirm that pre-assigning high-ranked genes does not remove feasible growth-coupled solutions. This will help substantiate that the performance gains are not due to an altered feasible set. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Results] The manuscript states that “most” original successes are recovered but supplies neither a quantitative breakdown (e.g., fraction recovered per model) nor a sensitivity analysis with respect to the importance threshold; without this, it is unclear whether the method systematically trades solution completeness for speed.

    Authors: We agree that providing quantitative details would strengthen the presentation. We will revise the Results section to include a table reporting the exact number and fraction of original successes recovered for each tested model. Additionally, we will perform and report a sensitivity analysis varying the importance threshold (e.g., pre-assigning the top 5%, 10%, and 15% of ranked genes) and show how this affects both success rates and solution recovery. This will clarify the trade-offs and demonstrate the robustness of the approach. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Minor self-citation present but not load-bearing; central claims remain empirically grounded

full rationale

The paper introduces a gene-ranking heuristic to decompose MILP instances for growth-coupled design into parallel subproblems after pre-assigning 0/1 values to top-ranked genes. Success-rate gains (37-186 %) and recovery of most original solutions are reported from direct runtime comparisons against the unmodified solver on the same models and time budgets. No derivation reduces a fitted parameter or prediction to the reported metric by construction, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported via self-citation to justify the ranking rule itself. The single minor self-citation (if any) concerns prior algorithmic context rather than the performance claims, leaving the framework self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the effectiveness of an unspecified gene-ranking procedure and the assumption that fixing high-ranking genes preserves solution quality.

free parameters (1)
  • Importance threshold for pre-assignment
    Cutoff used to decide which genes receive fixed values before subproblem creation.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Gene ranking accurately reflects impact on MILP feasibility and optimality.
    Invoked to justify pre-assigning values without losing viable designs.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5800 in / 1120 out tokens · 35385 ms · 2026-05-21T20:17:56.414565+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    MohammadrezaYasemiandMarioJolicoeur.Modellingcellmetabolism: areview on constraint-based steady-state and kinetic approaches.Processes, 9(2):322, 2021

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    John Wiley & Sons, 2016

    Costas D Maranas and Ali R Zomorrodi.Optimization methods in metabolic networks. John Wiley & Sons, 2016

    work page 2016

  3. [3]

    Systems biology of metabolism.Annual review of biochemistry, 86(1):245–275, 2017

    Jens Nielsen. Systems biology of metabolism.Annual review of biochemistry, 86(1):245–275, 2017

    work page 2017

  4. [4]

    Tuty Asmawaty Abdul Kadir, Ahmad A Mannan, Andrzej M Kierzek, Johnjoe McFadden, and Kazuyuki Shimizu. Modeling and simulation of the main metabolism in escherichia coli and its several single-gene knockout mutants with experimental verification.Microbial cell factories, 9(1):88, 2010

    work page 2010

  5. [5]

    Akinetic model of escherichia coli core metabolism satisfying multiple sets of mutant flux data.Metabolic engineering, 25:50–62, 2014

    AliKhodayari,AliRZomorrodi,JamesCLiao,andCostasDMaranas. Akinetic model of escherichia coli core metabolism satisfying multiple sets of mutant flux data.Metabolic engineering, 25:50–62, 2014

    work page 2014

  6. [6]

    Mathematical modelling of metabolism.Current opinion in biotechnology, 11(2):180–186, 2000

    Andreas Karoly Gombert and Jens Nielsen. Mathematical modelling of metabolism.Current opinion in biotechnology, 11(2):180–186, 2000

    work page 2000

  7. [7]

    Mass conserved elementary kinetics is sufficientfortheexistenceofanon-equilibriumsteadystateconcentration.Journal of Theoretical Biology, 314:173–181, 2012

    Ronan MT Fleming and Ines Thiele. Mass conserved elementary kinetics is sufficientfortheexistenceofanon-equilibriumsteadystateconcentration.Journal of Theoretical Biology, 314:173–181, 2012. 23

    work page 2012

  8. [8]

    Elsevier, 1998

    George Stephanopoulos, Aristos A Aristidou, and Jens Nielsen.Metabolic engineering: principles and methodologies. Elsevier, 1998

    work page 1998

  9. [9]

    Quasi-steady-stateapproximationinthemathematical modelingofbiochemicalreactionnetworks.Mathematical biosciences,65(2):155– 170, 1983

    MSchauerandRHeinrich. Quasi-steady-stateapproximationinthemathematical modelingofbiochemicalreactionnetworks.Mathematical biosciences,65(2):155– 170, 1983

    work page 1983

  10. [10]

    Constraint- based stoichiometric modelling from single organisms to microbial communities

    WilliGottstein,BrettGOlivier,FrankJBruggeman,andBasTeusink. Constraint- based stoichiometric modelling from single organisms to microbial communities. Journal of the Royal Society Interface, 13(124):20160627, 2016

    work page 2016

  11. [11]

    Recent advances in reconstruction and applications of genome-scale metabolic models.Current opinion in biotechnology, 23(4):617–623, 2012

    Tae Yong Kim, Seung Bum Sohn, Yu Bin Kim, Won Jun Kim, and Sang Yup Lee. Recent advances in reconstruction and applications of genome-scale metabolic models.Current opinion in biotechnology, 23(4):617–623, 2012

    work page 2012

  12. [12]

    A genome-scale metabolic reconstruction forescherichia colik-12 mg1655 that accounts for 1260 orfs and thermodynamic information

    Adam M Feist, Christopher S Henry, Jennifer L Reed, Markus Krummenacker, Andrew R Joyce, Peter D Karp, Linda J Broadbelt, Vassily Hatzimanikatis, and Bernhard Ø Palsson. A genome-scale metabolic reconstruction forescherichia colik-12 mg1655 that accounts for 1260 orfs and thermodynamic information. Molecular systems biology, 3(1):121, 2007

    work page 2007

  13. [13]

    Reconstructionand use of microbial metabolic networks: the coreescherichia colimetabolic model as an educational guide.EcoSal plus, 2010

    JeffreyDOrth,RonanMTFleming,andBernhardOPalsson. Reconstructionand use of microbial metabolic networks: the coreescherichia colimetabolic model as an educational guide.EcoSal plus, 2010

    work page 2010

  14. [14]

    A comprehensive genome-scale reconstructionofescherichia colimetabolism—2011.Molecular systems biology, 7(1):535, 2011

    Jeffrey D Orth, Tom M Conrad, Jessica Na, Joshua A Lerman, Hojung Nam, Adam M Feist, and Bernhard Ø Palsson. A comprehensive genome-scale reconstructionofescherichia colimetabolism—2011.Molecular systems biology, 7(1):535, 2011

    work page 2011

  15. [15]

    Bigg models 2020: multi-strain genome-scale models and expansion across the phylogenetic tree

    Charles J Norsigian, Neha Pusarla, John Luke McConn, James T Yurkovich, Andreas Dräger, Bernhard O Palsson, and Zachary King. Bigg models 2020: multi-strain genome-scale models and expansion across the phylogenetic tree. Nucleic acids research, 48(D1):D402–D406, 2020

    work page 2020

  16. [16]

    What is flux balance analysis?Nature biotechnology, 28(3):245–248, 2010

    Jeffrey D Orth, Ines Thiele, and Bernhard Ø Palsson. What is flux balance analysis?Nature biotechnology, 28(3):245–248, 2010

    work page 2010

  17. [17]

    Growth-coupledoverproductionisfeasiblefor almostallmetabolitesinfivemajorproductionorganisms.Nature communications, 8:15956, 2017

    AxelvonKampandSteffenKlamt. Growth-coupledoverproductionisfeasiblefor almostallmetabolitesinfivemajorproductionorganisms.Nature communications, 8:15956, 2017

    work page 2017

  18. [18]

    Metabolic flux balancing: basic concepts, scientific and practical use.Bio/technology, 12(10):994–998, 1994

    Amit Varma and Bernhard O Palsson. Metabolic flux balancing: basic concepts, scientific and practical use.Bio/technology, 12(10):994–998, 1994

    work page 1994

  19. [19]

    Optknock: a bilevel programming framework for identifying gene knockout strategies for microbial strain optimization.Biotechnology and bioengineering, 84(6):647–657, 2003

    Anthony P Burgard, Priti Pharkya, and Costas D Maranas. Optknock: a bilevel programming framework for identifying gene knockout strategies for microbial strain optimization.Biotechnology and bioengineering, 84(6):647–657, 2003. 24

    work page 2003

  20. [20]

    Gene deletionalgorithmsforminimumreactionnetworkdesignbymixed-integerlinear programming for metabolite production in constraint-based models: gdel_minrn

    Takeyuki Tamura, Ai Muto-Fujita, Yukako Tohsato, and Tomoyuki Kosaka. Gene deletionalgorithmsforminimumreactionnetworkdesignbymixed-integerlinear programming for metabolite production in constraint-based models: gdel_minrn. Journal of Computational Biology, 2023

    work page 2023

  21. [21]

    Optforce: an optimization procedure for identifying all genetic manipulations leading to targeted overproductions.PLoS Comput Biol, 6(4):e1000744, 2010

    Sridhar Ranganathan, Patrick F Suthers, and Costas D Maranas. Optforce: an optimization procedure for identifying all genetic manipulations leading to targeted overproductions.PLoS Comput Biol, 6(4):e1000744, 2010

    work page 2010

  22. [22]

    Optcom: a multi-level optimization framework for the metabolic modeling and analysis of microbial communities

    Ali R Zomorrodi and Costas D Maranas. Optcom: a multi-level optimization framework for the metabolic modeling and analysis of microbial communities. PLoS computational biology, 8(2):e1002363, 2012

    work page 2012

  23. [23]

    Metnetcomp: Databaseforminimalandmaximalgene-deletion strategies for growth-coupled production of genome-scale metabolic networks

    TakeyukiTamura. Metnetcomp: Databaseforminimalandmaximalgene-deletion strategies for growth-coupled production of genome-scale metabolic networks. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Computational Biology and Bioinformatics, 2023

    work page 2023

  24. [24]

    Yier Ma and Takeyuki Tamura. Ratgene: Gene deletion-addition algorithms using growth to production ratio for growth-coupled production in constraint- based metabolic networks.IEEE Transactions on Computational Biology and Bioinformatics, 2025

    work page 2025

  25. [25]

    Philipp Schneider, Radhakrishnan Mahadevan, and Steffen Klamt. System- atizing the different notions of growth-coupled product synthesis and a single framework for computing corresponding strain designs.Biotechnology Journal, 16(12):2100236, 2021

    work page 2021

  26. [26]

    Creation and analysis of biochemical constraint- based models using the cobra toolbox v

    Laurent Heirendt, Sylvain Arreckx, Thomas Pfau, Sebastián N Mendoza, Anne Richelle, Almut Heinken, Hulda S Haraldsdóttir, Jacek Wachowiak, Sarah M Keating, Vanja Vlasov, et al. Creation and analysis of biochemical constraint- based models using the cobra toolbox v. 3.0.Nature protocols, 14(3):639–702, 2019

    work page 2019

  27. [27]

    Mip: Theory and practice—closing the gap

    ERobertBixby,MaryFenelon,ZonghaoGu,EdRothberg,andRolandWunderling. Mip: Theory and practice—closing the gap. InIFIP Conference on System Modeling and Optimization, pages 19–49. Springer, 1999

    work page 1999

  28. [28]

    An automatic method for solving discrete programming problems

    Ailsa H Land and Alison G Doig. An automatic method for solving discrete programming problems. In50 Years of Integer Programming 1958-2008: From the Early Years to the State-of-the-Art, pages 105–132. Springer, 2009

    work page 1958

  29. [29]

    The cutting-plane method for solving convex programs

    James E Kelley, Jr. The cutting-plane method for solving convex programs. Journal of the society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, 8(4):703–712, 1960

    work page 1960

  30. [30]

    Elementary flux modes in a nutshell: properties, calculation and applications.Biotechnology journal, 8(9):1009–1016, 2013

    Jürgen Zanghellini, David E Ruckerbauer, Michael Hanscho, and Christian Jungreuthmayer. Elementary flux modes in a nutshell: properties, calculation and applications.Biotechnology journal, 8(9):1009–1016, 2013. 25

    work page 2013

  31. [31]

    Predrag Horvat, Martin Koller, and Gerhart Braunegg. Recent advances in elementary flux modes and yield space analysis as useful tools in metabolic network studies.World Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology, 31(9):1315– 1328, 2015

    work page 2015

  32. [32]

    Min- imal cut sets in a metabolic network are elementary modes in a dual network

    Kathrin Ballerstein, Axel von Kamp, Steffen Klamt, and Utz-Uwe Haus. Min- imal cut sets in a metabolic network are elementary modes in a dual network. Bioinformatics, 28(3):381–387, 2012

    work page 2012

  33. [33]

    Enumeration of smallest intervention strategies in genome-scale metabolic networks.PLoS computational biology, 10(1):e1003378, 2014

    Axel von Kamp and Steffen Klamt. Enumeration of smallest intervention strategies in genome-scale metabolic networks.PLoS computational biology, 10(1):e1003378, 2014

    work page 2014

  34. [34]

    L1 norm minimal mode-based methods for listing reaction net- work designs for metabolite production.IEICE TRANSACTIONS on Information and Systems, 104(5):679–687, 2021

    Takeyuki Tamura. L1 norm minimal mode-based methods for listing reaction net- work designs for metabolite production.IEICE TRANSACTIONS on Information and Systems, 104(5):679–687, 2021

    work page 2021

  35. [35]

    From elementary flux modes to elementary flux vectors: Metabolic pathway analysis with arbitrary linear flux constraints.PLoS computational biology, 13(4), 2017

    SteffenKlamt, GeorgRegensburger, MatthiasPGerstl, ChristianJungreuthmayer, Stefan Schuster, Radhakrishnan Mahadevan, Jürgen Zanghellini, and Stefan Müller. From elementary flux modes to elementary flux vectors: Metabolic pathway analysis with arbitrary linear flux constraints.PLoS computational biology, 13(4), 2017

    work page 2017

  36. [36]

    Model-driven evaluation of the production potential for growth-coupled products of escherichia coli.Metabolic engineering, 12(3):173–186, 2010

    Adam M Feist, Daniel C Zielinski, Jeffrey D Orth, Jan Schellenberger, Markus J Herrgard, and Bernhard Ø Palsson. Model-driven evaluation of the production potential for growth-coupled products of escherichia coli.Metabolic engineering, 12(3):173–186, 2010

    work page 2010

  37. [37]

    Takeyuki Tamura. Trimming gene deletion strategies for growth-coupled produc- tion in constraint-based metabolic networks: Trimgdel.IEEE/ACM Transactions on Computational Biology and Bioinformatics, 2022

    work page 2022

  38. [38]

    Predicting metabolic engineering knockout strategies for chemical production: accounting for competing pathways.Bioinfor- matics, 26(4):536–543, 2010

    Naama Tepper and Tomer Shlomi. Predicting metabolic engineering knockout strategies for chemical production: accounting for competing pathways.Bioinfor- matics, 26(4):536–543, 2010

    work page 2010

  39. [39]

    Evolu- tionary programming as a platform for in silico metabolic engineering.BMC bioinformatics, 6(1):308, 2005

    Kiran Raosaheb Patil, Isabel Rocha, Jochen Förster, and Jens Nielsen. Evolu- tionary programming as a platform for in silico metabolic engineering.BMC bioinformatics, 6(1):308, 2005

    work page 2005

  40. [40]

    Determination of growth-coupling strategies and their underlying principles.BMC bioinformatics, 20(1):447, 2019

    Tobias B Alter and Birgitta E Ebert. Determination of growth-coupling strategies and their underlying principles.BMC bioinformatics, 20(1):447, 2019

    work page 2019

  41. [41]

    Straindesign: a comprehensive python package for computational design of metabolic networks.Bioinformatics, 38(21):4981–4983, 2022

    PhilippSchneider,PavlosStephanosBekiaris,AxelvonKamp,andSteffenKlamt. Straindesign: a comprehensive python package for computational design of metabolic networks.Bioinformatics, 38(21):4981–4983, 2022. 26

    work page 2022

  42. [42]

    Grid-basedcomputationalmethodsforthedesignofconstraint- basedparsimoniouschemicalreactionnetworkstosimulatemetaboliteproduction: Gridprod.BMC bioinformatics, 19(1):325, 2018

    TakeyukiTamura. Grid-basedcomputationalmethodsforthedesignofconstraint- basedparsimoniouschemicalreactionnetworkstosimulatemetaboliteproduction: Gridprod.BMC bioinformatics, 19(1):325, 2018

    work page 2018

  43. [43]

    Yier Ma and Takeyuki Tamura. Dynamic solution space division-based methods forcalculatingreactiondeletionstrategiesforconstraint-basedmetabolicnetworks for substance production: Dyncubeprod.Frontiers in Bioinformatics, 1:716112, 2021

    work page 2021

  44. [44]

    TakeyukiTamura. Efficientreactiondeletionalgorithmsforredesignofconstraint- based metabolic networks for metabolite production with weak coupling.IPSJ Transactions on Bioinformatics, 14:12–21, 2021

    work page 2021

  45. [45]

    Optstrain: a computa- tionalframeworkforredesignofmicrobialproductionsystems.Genome research, 14(11):2367–2376, 2004

    Priti Pharkya, Anthony P Burgard, and Costas D Maranas. Optstrain: a computa- tionalframeworkforredesignofmicrobialproductionsystems.Genome research, 14(11):2367–2376, 2004

    work page 2004

  46. [46]

    An in-silico approach to predict and exploit synthetic lethality in cancer metabolism.Nature communications, 8(1):459, 2017

    Iñigo Apaolaza, Edurne San José-Eneriz, Luis Tobalina, Estíbaliz Miranda, Leire Garate, Xabier Agirre, Felipe Prósper, and Francisco J Planes. An in-silico approach to predict and exploit synthetic lethality in cancer metabolism.Nature communications, 8(1):459, 2017

    work page 2017