A metabolic modeling platform for the computation of microbial ecosystems in time and space (COMETS)

Ilija Dukovski, Djordje Bajić, Jeremy M. Chacón, Michael Quintin, Jean C. C. Vila, Snorre Sulheim, Alan R. Pacheco, David B. Bernstein, William J. Riehl, Kirill S. Korolev, Alvaro Sanchez, William R. Harcombe, Daniel Segrè

Published: 2021-10-10 DOI: 10.1038/s41596-021-00593-3

Metabolic Modeling

Microbial Ecosystems

COMETS

Dynamic Flux Balance Analysis

Biophysical Model

AI 解读

Extended

Extended Data Fig. 1 Sensitivity of the simulation results depending on the value of the finite time step.

Starting with a simulation identical to the one in Procedure 7, we repeated it with four different values of the time step: a , images of the final colony morphologies; b , plot of the total biomass change with time, illustrating the magnitude of the error due to the finite time step size. The simulation time step size should be chosen such that final simulation result is within the tolerated error.

Extended Data Fig. 2 Sensitivity of the simulation results depending on the value of the finite spatial grid size.

Starting with a simulation identical to the one in Procedure 7, we repeated it with four different values of the grid size: a , images of the final colony morphologies; b , plot of the total biomass change with time, illustrating the magnitude of the error due to the finite grid size. The simulation finite spatial grid size should be chosen such that the final simulation result is within the tolerated error.

Extended Data Fig. 3 Sensitivity of the simulation results depending on the value of the amplitude of the demographic noise.

Starting with a simulation identical to the one in Procedure 7, we repeated it with two different magnitudes of the noise amplitude σ : a , b , images of three replicas of a colony simulation ( a ), and plot of the total biomass change with time of the three replicas simulations with σ = 0.01 ( b ); c , d , Images of three replicas of a colony simulation ( c ), and plot of the total biomass change with time of the three replicas simulations with σ = 0.001 ( d ). A finalized result of a simulation study in presence of noise should be averaged over several replicas of the stochastic simulation. The change of the noise amplitude, however, may have a substantial effect of the growth rate and the final morphology. The value of the noise amplitude should be chosen to best represent an experimental result.

Extended Data Fig. 4 COMETS simulations time benchmarking.

In order to benchmark the performance of COMETS with increasing complexity of the simulated system, we performed a 24 h batch culture run similar to that in Procedure 1, with either 1, 10 or 100 models (the E. coli model iJO1366 was used in all instances). The settings were identical to Procedure 1 in the main text. We tested three timesteps, 0.01 h (circles), 0.1 h (triangles) and 0.5 h. (squares). The x -axis shows simulated time (i.e., number of simulation steps × timeStep, in h); the y -axis shows elapsed simulation time (the time taken by the computer to run the program), in min. Simulations were performed in Python using cometspy in a personal laptop running linux (Intel Core i7-10610U CPU at 1.80 GHz × 4 cores, 15.3 GiB memory).

Extended Data Fig. 5 The GUI of COMETS.

COMETS simulations can be started from the GUI by loading a previously prepared layout, models and parameters files. It is meant mostly as a training tool with limited functionality. Future development of COMETS will focus on the development of a comprehensive GUI.

Efficient and strand-specific profiling of replicating chromatin with enrichment and sequencing of protein-associated nascent DNA in mammalian cells

The eINTACT method for studying nuclear changes in host plant cells targeted by bacterial effectors in native infection contexts

Rapid reaction optimization by robust and economical quantitative benchtop19F NMR spectroscopy

Profiling native pulmonary basement membrane stiffness using atomic force microscopy

Photoimmunotechnology as a powerful biological tool for molecular-based elimination of target cells and microbes, including bacteria, fungi and viruses

Measuring key human carbohydrate digestive enzyme activities using high-performance anion-exchange chromatography with pulsed amperometric detection

Neural cell isolation from adult macaques for high-throughput analyses and neurosphere cultures

Preparation, validation and use of a vasoactive tryptophan-derived hydroperoxide and relevant control compounds

Neuronal subtype-specific growth cone and soma purification from mammalian CNS via fractionation and fluorescent sorting for subcellular analyses and spatial mapping of local transcriptomes and proteomes

查看全部

Sections

Figures

References

Genome-scale stoichiometric modeling of metabolism has become a standard systems biology tool for modeling cellular physiology and growth. Extensions of this approach are emerging as a valuable avenue for predicting, understanding and designing microbial
Introduction
Materials
Procedure 1: growth of bacteria in well mixed conditions using the MATLAB toolbox and COMETS GUI
Procedure 2: simulating cross-feeding in a chemostat
Procedure 3: periodic environments and light absorption; modeling the diurnal cycle using the MATLAB toolbox
Procedure 4: simulations including extracellular reactions
Procedure 5: simulating evolutionary processes in microbial populations
Procedure 6: microbial growth in natural environments; soil–nobreakair interface simulation
Procedure 7: demographic noise and cooperative biomass propagation
Troubleshooting
Timing
Anticipated results
References
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Shou, W., Ram, S. & Vilar, J. M. G. Synthetic cooperation in engineered yeast populations. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 104, 1877–1882 (2007).
Vorholt, J. A., Vogel, C., Carlström, C. I. & Müller, D. B. Establishing causality: opportunities of synthetic communities for plant microbiome research. Cell Host Microbe 22, 142–155 (2017).
Kehe, J. et al. Massively parallel screening of synthetic microbial communities. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 12804–12809 (2019).
Venturelli, O. S. et al. Deciphering microbial interactions in synthetic human gut microbiome communities. Mol. Syst. Biol. 14, e8157 (2018).
Johns, N. I., Blazejewski, T., Gomes, A. L. & Wang, H. H. Principles for designing synthetic microbial communities. Curr. Opin. Microbiol. 31, 146–153 (2016).
Grosskopf, T. & Soyer, O. S. Synthetic microbial communities. Curr. Opin. Microbiol. 18, 72–77 (2014).
Thompson, L. R. et al. A communal catalogue reveals Earth’s multiscale microbial diversity. Nature 551, 457–463 (2017).
Andreote, F. D. & de Cássia Pereira e Silva, M. Microbial communities associated with plants: learning from nature to apply it in agriculture. Curr. Opin. Microbiol. 37, 29–34 (2017).
Moran, M. A. The global ocean microbiome. Science 350, aac8455 (2015).
Integrative HMP (iHMP) Research Network Consortium. The Integrative Human Microbiome Project. Nature 569, 641–648 (2019).
Friedman, J. & Gore, J. Ecological systems biology: the dynamics of interacting populations. Curr. Opin. Syst. Biol. 1, 114–121 (2017).
Foster, K. R., Schluter, J., Coyte, K. Z. & Rakoff-Nahoum, S. The evolution of the host microbiome as an ecosystem on a leash. Nature 548, 43–51 (2017).
Human Microbiome Project Consortium. Structure, function and diversity of the healthy human microbiome. Nature 486, 207–214 (2012).
Noronha, A. et al. The Virtual Metabolic Human database: integrating human and gut microbiome metabolism with nutrition and disease. Nucleic Acids Res. 47, D614–D624 (2019).
Lozupone, C. A., Stombaugh, J. I., Gordon, J. I., Jansson, J. K. & Knight, R. Diversity, stability and resilience of the human gut microbiota. Nature 489, 220–230 (2012).
Saifuddin, M., Bhatnagar, J. M., Segrè, D. & Finzi, A. C. Microbial carbon use efficiency predicted from genome-scale metabolic models. Nat. Commun. 10, 3568 (2019).
Gilbert, J. A., Jansson, J. K. & Knight, R. Earth Microbiome Project and Global Systems Biology. mSystems 3, e00217–17 (2018).
Ibarbalz, F. M. et al. Global trends in marine plankton diversity across kingdoms of life. Cell 179, 1084–1097.e21 (2019).
Ko, Y.-S. et al. Tools and strategies of systems metabolic engineering for the development of microbial cell factories for chemical production. Chem. Soc. Rev. 49, 4615–4636 (2020).
Keasling, J. D. Manufacturing molecules through metabolic engineering. Science 330, 1355–1358 (2010).
Pacheco, A. R., Moel, M. & Segrè, D. Costless metabolic secretions as drivers of interspecies interactions in microbial ecosystems. Nat. Commun. 10, 103 (2019).
Germerodt, S. et al. Pervasive selection for cooperative cross-feeding in bacterial communities. PLoS Comput. Biol. 12, e1004986 (2016).
Rakoff-Nahoum, S., Foster, K. R. & Comstock, L. E. The evolution of cooperation within the gut microbiota. Nature 533, 255–259 (2016).
Zelezniak, A. et al. Metabolic dependencies drive species co-occurrence in diverse microbial communities. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 6449–6454 (2015).
Widder, S. et al. Challenges in microbial ecology: building predictive understanding of community function and dynamics. ISME J. 10, 2557–2568 (2016).
Goldford, J. E. et al. Emergent simplicity in microbial community assembly. Science 361, 469–474 (2018).
Magnúsdóttir, S. & Thiele, I. Modeling metabolism of the human gut microbiome. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 51, 90–96 (2018).
Harcombe, W. R. et al. Metabolic resource allocation in individual microbes determines ecosystem interactions and spatial dynamics. Cell Rep. 7, 1104–1115 (2014).
Gu, C., Kim, G. B., Kim, W. J., Kim, H. U. & Lee, S. Y. Current status and applications of genome-scale metabolic models. Genome Biol. 20, 121 (2019).
Bordbar, A., Monk, J. M., King, Z. A. & Palsson, B. O. Constraint-based models predict metabolic and associated cellular functions. Nat. Rev. Genet. 15, 107–120 (2014).
O’Brien, E. J., Monk, J. M. & Palsson, B. O. Using genome-scale models to predict biological capabilities. Cell 161, 971–987 (2015).
Orth, J. D., Thiele, I. & Palsson, B. Ø. What is flux balance analysis? Nat. Biotechnol. 28, 245–248 (2010).
Arkin, A. P. et al. KBase: The United States Department of Energy Systems Biology Knowledgebase. Nat. Biotechnol. 36, 566–569 (2018).
Karp, P. D. et al. The BioCyc collection of microbial genomes and metabolic pathways. Brief. Bioinform. 20, 1085–1093 (2019).
King, Z. A. et al. BiGG Models: a platform for integrating, standardizing and sharing genome-scale models. Nucleic Acids Res. 44, D515–D522 (2016).
Lieven, C. et al. MEMOTE for standardized genome-scale metabolic model testing. Nat. Biotechnol. 38, 272–276 (2020).
Machado, D., Andrejev, S., Tramontano, M. & Patil, K. R. Fast automated reconstruction of genome-scale metabolic models for microbial species and communities. Nucleic Acids Res. 46, 7542–7553 (2018).
Willi, G., Olivier Brett, G., Bruggeman Frank, J. & Bas, T. Constraint-based stoichiometric modelling from single organisms to microbial communities. J. R. Soc. Interface 13, 20160627 (2016).
Zomorrodi, A. R. & Maranas, C. D. OptCom: a multi-level optimization framework for the metabolic modeling and analysis of microbial communities. PLoS Comput. Biol. 8, e1002363 (2012).
Khandelwal, R. A., Olivier, B. G., Röling, W. F. M., Teusink, B. & Bruggeman, F. J. Community flux balance analysis for microbial consortia at balanced growth. PLoS One 8, e64567 (2013).
Stolyar, S. et al. Metabolic modeling of a mutualistic microbial community. Mol. Syst. Biol. 3, 92 (2007).
Chen, J. et al. Spatiotemporal modeling of microbial metabolism. BMC Syst. Biol. 10, 21 (2016).
Mahadevan, R., Edwards, J. S. & Doyle, F. J. 3rd Dynamic flux balance analysis of diauxic growth in Escherichia coli. Biophys. J. 83, 1331–1340 (2002).
Höffner, K., Harwood, S. M. & Barton, P. I. A reliable simulator for dynamic flux balance analysis. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 110, 792–802 (2013).
Henson, M. A. & Hanly, T. J. Dynamic flux balance analysis for synthetic microbial communities. IET Syst. Biol. 8, 214–229 (2014).
Zhuang, K. et al. Genome-scale dynamic modeling of the competition between Rhodoferax and Geobacter in anoxic subsurface environments. ISME J. 5, 305–316 (2011).
Tzamali, E., Poirazi, P., Tollis, I. G. & Reczko, M. A computational exploration of bacterial metabolic diversity identifying metabolic interactions and growth-efficient strain communities. BMC Syst. Biol. 5, 167 (2011).
Hanly, T. J. & Henson, M. A. Dynamic flux balance modeling of microbial co-cultures for efficient batch fermentation of glucose and xylose mixtures. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 108, 376–385 (2011).
Thiele, I. & Palsson, B. Ø. A protocol for generating a high-quality genome-scale metabolic reconstruction. Nat. Protoc. 5, 93–121 (2010).
Rocha, I., Förster, J. & Nielsen, J. Design and application of genome-scale reconstructed metabolic models. Methods Mol. Biol. 416, 409–431 (2008).
Nadell, C. D., Drescher, K. & Foster, K. R. Spatial structure, cooperation and competition in biofilms. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 14, 589–600 (2016).
Chacón, J. M., Möbius, W. & Harcombe, W. R. The spatial and metabolic basis of colony size variation. ISME J. 12, 669–680 (2018).
Hynes, W. F. et al. Bioprinting microbial communities to examine interspecies interactions in time and space. Biomed. Phys. Eng. Express 4, 055010 (2018).
DiMucci, D., Kon, M. & Segrè, D. Machine learning reveals missing edges and putative interaction mechanisms in microbial ecosystem networks. mSystems 3, e00181–18 (2018).
Harcombe, W. R., Chacón, J. M., Adamowicz, E. M., Chubiz, L. M. & Marx, C. J. Evolution of bidirectional costly mutualism from byproduct consumption. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, 12000–12004 (2018).
Hammarlund, S. P., Chacón, J. M. & Harcombe, W. R. A shared limiting resource leads to competitive exclusion in a cross-feeding system. Environ. Microbiol. 21, 759–771 (2019).
Bajić, D., Vila, J. C. C., Blount, Z. D. & Sánchez, A. On the deformability of an empirical fitness landscape by microbial evolution. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, 11286–11291 (2018).
García-Jiménez, B., García, J. L. & Nogales, J. FLYCOP: metabolic modeling-based analysis and engineering microbial communities. Bioinformatics 34, i954–i963 (2018).
Yu, B. et al. Experiments and simulations on short chain fatty acid production in a colonic bacterial community. Preprint at bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/444760 (2018)
Heirendt, L. et al. Creation and analysis of biochemical constraint-based models using the COBRA Toolbox v.3.0. Nat. Protoc. 14, 639–702 (2019).
Feist, A. M. & Palsson, B. O. The biomass objective function. Curr. Opin. Microbiol. 13, 344–349 (2010).
Ibarra, R. U., Edwards, J. S. & Palsson, B. O. Escherichia coli K-12 undergoes adaptive evolution to achieve in silico predicted optimal growth. Nature 420, 186–189 (2002).
Fong, S. S. & Palsson, B. Ø. Metabolic gene–deletion strains of Escherichia coli evolve to computationally predicted growth phenotypes. Nat. Genet. 36, 1056–1058 (2004).
Segrè, D., Vitkup, D. & Church, G. M. Analysis of optimality in natural and perturbed metabolic networks. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 99, 15112–15117 (2002).
Wintermute, E. H., Lieberman, T. D. & Silver, P. A. An objective function exploiting suboptimal solutions in metabolic networks. BMC Syst. Biol. 7, 98 (2013).
Lewis, N. E. et al. Omic data from evolved E. coli are consistent with computed optimal growth from genome-scale models. Mol. Syst. Biol. 6, 390 (2010).
Matsushita, M. et al. Interface growth and pattern formation in bacterial colonies. Phys. A Stat. Mech. Appl. 249, 517–524 (1998).
Farrell, F. D. C., Hallatschek, O., Marenduzzo, D. & Waclaw, B. Mechanically driven growth of quasi-two-dimensional microbial colonies. Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 168101 (2013).
Tronnolone, H. et al. Diffusion-limited growth of microbial colonies. Sci. Rep. 8, 5992 (2018).
Lacasta, A. M., Cantalapiedra, I. R., Auguet, C. E., Peñaranda, A. & Ramírez-Piscina, L. Modeling of spatiotemporal patterns in bacterial colonies. Phys. Rev. E 59, 7036–7041 (1999).
Kozlovsky, Y., Cohen, I., Golding, I. & Ben-Jacob, E. Lubricating bacteria model for branching growth of bacterial colonies. Phys. Rev. E Stat. Phys. Plasmas Fluids Relat. Interdiscip. Topics 59, 7025–7035 (1999).
Giverso, C., Verani, M. & Ciarletta, P. Branching instability in expanding bacterial colonies. J. R. Soc. Interface 12, 20141290 (2015).
Henrichsen, J. Bacterial surface translocation: a survey and a classification. Bacteriol. Rev. 36, 478–503 (1972).
Vassallo, L., Hansmann, D. & Braunstein, L. A. On the growth of non-motile bacteria colonies: an agent-based model for pattern formation. Eur. Phys. J. B 92, 216 (2019).
Ben-Jacob, E. et al. Generic modelling of cooperative growth patterns in bacterial colonies. Nature 368, 46–49 (1994).
Dornic, I., Chaté, H. & Muñoz, M. A. Integration of Langevin equations with multiplicative noise and the viability of field theories for absorbing phase transitions. Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 100601 (2005).
Press, W. H. Numerical Recipes in C: The Art of Scientific Computing 2nd edn (Cambridge University Press, 1992).
LeVeque, R. J. Finite Difference Methods for Ordinary and Partial Differential Equations: Steady-State and Time-Dependent Problems (SIAM, 2007).
Varma, A. & Palsson, B. O. Stoichiometric flux balance models quantitatively predict growth and metabolic by-product secretion in wild-type Escherichia coli W3110. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 60, 3724–3731 (1994).
Orth, J. D., Palsson, B. Ø. & Fleming, R. M. T. Reconstruction and use of microbial metabolic networks: the core Escherichia coli metabolic model as an educational guide. EcoSal Plus 4 (2010).
Zeng, H. & Yang, A. Bridging substrate intake kinetics and bacterial growth phenotypes with flux balance analysis incorporating proteome allocation. Sci. Rep. 10, 4283 (2020).
Sauro, H. M. Enzyme Kinetics for Systems Biology (Ambrosius Publishing, 2012).
Ebrahim, A., Lerman, J. A., Palsson, B. O. & Hyduke, D. R. COBRApy: COnstraints-Based Reconstruction and Analysis for Python. BMC Syst. Biol. 7, 74 (2013).
Ofaim, S., Sulheim, S., Almaas, E., Sher, D. & Segrè, D. Dynamic allocation of carbon storage and nutrient-dependent exudation in a revised genome-scale model of Prochlorococcus. Front. Genet. 12, 586293 (2021).
Cezairliyan, B. & Ausubel, F. M. Investment in secreted enzymes during nutrient-limited growth is utility dependent. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, E7796–E7802 (2017).
Rakoff-Nahoum, S., Coyne, M. J. & Comstock, L. E. An ecological network of polysaccharide utilization among human intestinal symbionts. Curr. Biol. 24, 40–49 (2014).
van Zyl, W. H., Lynd, L. R., den Haan, R. & McBride, J. E. Consolidated bioprocessing for bioethanol production using Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Adv. Biochem. Eng. Biotechnol. 108, 205–235 (2007).
Traving, S. J., Thygesen, U. H., Riemann, L. & Stedmon, C. A. A model of extracellular enzymes in free-living microbes: which strategy pays off? Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 81, 7385–7393 (2015).
Huang, X.-F. et al. Rhizosphere interactions: root exudates, microbes, and microbial communities. Botany 92, 267–275 (2014).
Nunan, N. The microbial habitat in soil: scale, heterogeneity and functional consequences. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 180, 425–429 (2017).
Müller, J. & Van Saarloos, W. Morphological instability and dynamics of fronts in bacterial growth models with nonlinear diffusion. Phys. Rev. E Stat. Nonlin. Soft Matter Phys. 65, 061111 (2002).
Korolev, K. S., Avlund, M., Hallatschek, O. & Nelson, D. R. Genetic demixing and evolution in linear stepping stone models. Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 1691–1718 (2010).
Covert, M. W., Schilling, C. H. & Palsson, B. Regulation of gene expression in flux balance models of metabolism. J. Theor. Biol. 213, 73–88 (2001).
Covert, M. W. & Palsson, B. O. Constraints-based models: regulation of gene expression reduces the steady-state solution space. J. Theoret. Biol. 221, 309–325 (2003).
Asenjo, J. A., Diaz, H., Cintolesi, A., Rapaport, I. & Andrews, B. A. Metabolomics of recombinant yeast: Gene expression, flux analysis and a mathematical model for gene regulation of metabolism. J. Biotechnol. 136, S19 (2008).
Thanamit, K., Hoerhold, F., Oswald, M. & Koenig, R. Gene expression profiles based flux balance model to predict the carbon source for Bacillus subtilis. Preprint at bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/842518 (2020).
Goelzer, A., Fromion, V. & Scorletti, G. Cell design in bacteria as a convex optimization problem. Automatica 47, 1210–1218 (2011).
Mori, M., Hwa, T., Martin, O. C., De Martino, A. & Marinari, E. Constrained allocation flux balance analysis. PLoS Comput. Biol. 12, e1004913 (2016).
Becker, S. A. & Palsson, B. O. Context-specific metabolic networks are consistent with experiments. PLoS Comput. Biol. 4, e1000082 (2008).
Gutiérrez, M. et al. A new improved and extended version of the multicell bacterial simulator gro. ACS Synth. Biol. 6, 1496–1508 (2017).
Bauer, E., Zimmermann, J., Baldini, F., Thiele, I. & Kaleta, C. BacArena: individual-based metabolic modeling of heterogeneous microbes in complex communities. PLoS Comput. Biol. 13, e1005544 (2017).
Shade, A. et al. Fundamentals of microbial community resistance and resilience. Front. Microbiol. 3, 417 (2012).
Allison, S. D. & Martiny, J. B. H. Resistance, resilience, and redundancy in microbial communities. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105, 11512–11519 (2008).
Pacheco, A. R., Osborne, M. L. & Segrè, D. Non-additive microbial community responses to environmental complexity. Nat. Commun. 12, 2365 (2021).
Pacheco, A. R. & Segrè, D. Pacheco A. R. An evolutionary algorithm for designing microbial communities via environmental modification. J. R. Soc. Interface 18, 20210348 (2021).
Bricaud, A., Claustre, H., Ras, J. & Oubelkheir, K. Natural variability of phytoplanktonic absorption in oceanic waters: influence of the size structure of algal populations. J. Geophys. Res. 109, C11010 (2004).
Partensky, F., Hoepffner, N., Li, W., Ulloa, O. & Vaulot, D. Photoacclimation of Prochlorococcus sp. (Prochlorophyta) strains isolated from the North Atlantic and the Mediterranean Sea. Plant Physiol. 101, 285–296 (1993).
Casey, J. R., Mardinoglu, A., Nielsen, J. & Karl, D. M. Adaptive evolution of phosphorus metabolism in Prochlorococcus. mSystems 1, e00065–16 (2016).
Stramski, D., Bricaud, A. & Morel, A. Modeling the inherent optical properties of the ocean based on the detailed composition of the planktonic community. Appl. Opt. 40, 2929–2945 (2001).
Morel, A., Ahn, Y.-H., Partensky, F., Vaulot, D. & Claustre, H. Prochlorococcus and Synechococcus: a comparative study of their optical properties in relation to their size and pigmentation. J. Marine Res. 51, 617–649 (1993).
Pope, R. M. & Fry, E. S. Absorption spectrum (380–700 nm) of pure water II Integrating cavity measurements. Appl. Optics 36, 8710 (1997).
Morel, A. & Bricaud, A. Theoretical results concerning light absorption in a discrete medium, and application to specific absorption of phytoplankton. Deep Sea Res. A 28, 1375–1393 (1981).
Zomorrodi, A. R. & Maranas, C. D. Improving the iMM904 S. cerevisiae metabolic model using essentiality and synthetic lethality data. BMC Syst. Biol. 4, 178 (2010).
Biggs, M. B. & Papin, J. A. Novel multiscale modeling tool applied to Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilm formation. PLoS One 8, e78011 (2013).
Cole, J. A. et al. Spatially-resolved metabolic cooperativity within dense bacterial colonies. BMC Syst. Biol. 9, 15 (2015).
Borer, B., Ataman, M., Hatzimanikatis, V. & Or, D. Modeling metabolic networks of individual bacterial agents in heterogeneous and dynamic soil habitats (IndiMeSH). PLoS Comput. Biol. 15, e1007127 (2019).

A metabolic modeling platform for the computation of microbial ecosystems in time and space (COMETS)

Extended

Supplementary information

推荐阅读