Probabilistic strain optimization under constraint uncertainty

BMC Systems Biology

Soha Hassoun²  Kyongbum Lee¹  Michael Orshansky³  Mona Yousofshahi² 

[1] Department of Chemical and Biological Engineering, Tufts University, Medford, MA, USA;Department of Computer Science, Tufts University, Medford, MA, USA;Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA

关键词: Chance-constrained optimization;    Uncertainty;    Flux capacity;    Enzyme activity modification;   

Others  :  1142945
DOI  :  10.1186/1752-0509-7-29

 received in 2012-08-24, accepted in 2013-03-08,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

An important step in strain optimization is to identify reactions whose activities should be modified to achieve the desired cellular objective. Preferably, these reactions are identified systematically, as the number of possible combinations of reaction modifications could be very large. Over the last several years, a number of computational methods have been described for identifying combinations of reaction modifications. However, none of these methods explicitly address uncertainties in implementing the reaction activity modifications. In this work, we model the uncertainties as probability distributions in the flux carrying capacities of reactions. Based on this model, we develop an optimization method that identifies reactions for flux capacity modifications to predict outcomes with high statistical likelihood.

Results

We compare three optimization methods that select an intervention set comprising up- or down-regulation of reaction flux capacity: CCOpt (Chance constrained optimization), DetOpt (Deterministic optimization), and MCOpt (Monte Carlo-based optimization). We evaluate the methods using a Monte Carlo simulation-based method, MCEval (Monte Carlo Evaluations). We present two case studies analyzing a CHO cell and an adipocyte model. The flux capacity distributions required for our methods were estimated from maximal reaction velocities or elementary mode analysis. The intervention set selected by CCOpt consistently outperforms the intervention set selected by DetOpt in terms of tolerance to flux capacity variations. MCEval shows that the optimal flux predicted based on the CCOpt intervention set is more likely to be obtained, in a probabilistic sense, than the flux predicted by DetOpt. The intervention sets identified by CCOpt and MCOpt were similar; however, the exhaustive sampling required by MCOpt incurred significantly greater computational cost.

Conclusions

Maximizing tolerance to variable engineering outcomes (in modifying enzyme activities) can identify intervention sets that statistically improve the desired cellular objective.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Yousofshahi et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

Figure 5.

Figure 6.

Figure 7.

Figure 8.

Fig. 2.

Figure 10.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Hamm A, Krott N, Breibach I, Blindt R, Bosserhoff A: Efficient transfection method for primary cells. Tissue Eng 2002, 8(2):235-245.
• [2]Florea B, Meaney C, Junginger H, Borchard G: Transfection efficiency and toxicity of polyethylenimine in differentiated Calu-3 and nondifferentiated COS-1 cell cultures. AAPS PharmSci 2002, 4(3):E12.
• [3]Pharkya P, Maranas CD: An optimization framework for identifying reaction activation/inhibition or elimination candidates for overproduction in microbial systems. Metab Eng 2006, 8(1):1-13.
• [4]Burgard AP, Pharkya P, Maranas CD: Optknock, A bilevel programming framework for identifying gene knockout strategies for microbial strain optimization. Biotechnol Bioeng 2003, 84(6):647-657.
• [5]Lun DS, Rockwell G, Guido NJ, Baym M, Kelner JA, Berger B, Galagan JE, Church GM: Large-scale identification of genetic design strategies using local search. Mol Syst Biol 2009., 5http://www.nature.com/msb/journal/v5/n1/full/msb200957.html webcite
• [6]Ahmed S, Shapiro A: Solving chance-constrained stochastic programs via sampling and integer programming. In Tutorials in Operations Research Edited by Anonymous INFORMS. 2008, 261-269.
• [7]Charnes A, Cooper WW: Chance-constrained programming. Management Science 1959, 6(1):73-79.
• [8]Mani M, Orshansky M: A new statistical optimization algorithm for gate sizing. Computer Design, VLSI in Computers and Processors, 2004 ICCD 2004 Proceedings IEEE International Conference on 2004 2004, 272-277. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/articleDetails.jsp?arnumber=1347933 webcite
• [9]Zhu M, Taylor DB, Sarin SC, Kramer R: Chance Constrained Programming Models for Risk-Based Economic and Policy Analysis of Soil Conservation. Agric Resour Econ Rev 1994., 23(1)
• [10]Yeou-Koung Tung AM: Groundwater management by chance-constrained model. J Water Resour Plann Manage 1986, 112:1.
• [11]Ackooij W, Zorgati R, Henrion R, Möller A: Chance Constrained Programming and Its Applications to Energy Management, Stochastic Optimization. In Edited by Anonymous InTech. 2011. http://cdn.intechweb.org/pdfs/13877.pdf webcite
• [12]Maranas CD: Optimal molecular design under property prediction uncertainty. AIChE J 1997, 43(5):1250-1264.
• [13]Patil K, Rocha I, Forster J, Nielsen J: Evolutionary programming as a platform for in silico metabolic engineering. BMC Bioinformatics 2005, 6(1):308. BioMed Central Full Text
• [14]Hädicke O, Klamt S: CASOP, a computational approach for strain optimization aiming at high productivity. J Biotechnol 2010, 147(2):88-101.
• [15]Melzer G, Esfandabadi M, Franco-Lara E, Wittmann C: Flux design, in silico design of cell factories based on correlation of pathway fluxes to desired properties. BMC Syst Biol 2009, 3(1):120. BioMed Central Full Text
• [16]Driouch H, Melzer G, Wittmann C: Integration of in vivo and in silico metabolic fluxes for improvement of recombinant protein production. Metab Eng 2012, 14(1):47-58.
• [17]Liu B: Theory and Practice of Uncertain Programming. 2nd edition. Incorporated: Springer Publishing Company; 2009.
• [18]Marcotte P, Savard G: Bilevel Programming, A Combinatorial Perspective. 2005, 191-217. http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F0-387-25592-3_7?LI=true webcite
• [19]Colson B, Marcotte P, Savard G: Bilevel programming, A survey. 4OR, A Quarterly Journal of Operations Research 2005, 3(2):87-107.
• [20]Deng X, Xu J, Hui J, Wang C: Probability fold change, A robust computational approach for identifying differentially expressed gene lists. Comput Methods Programs Biomed 2009, 93(2):124-139.
• [21]Wang HC, Ko YH, Mersmann HJ, Chen CL, Ding ST: The expression of genes related to adipocyte differentiation in pigs. J Anim Sci 2006, 84(5):1059-1066.
• [22]Kurata H, Zhao Q, Okuda R, Shimizu K: Integration of enzyme activities into metabolic flux distributions by elementary mode analysis. BMC Syst Biol 2007, 1(1):31. BioMed Central Full Text
• [23]Schuster S, Dandekar T, Fell DA: Detection of elementary flux modes in biochemical networks, a promising tool for pathway analysis and metabolic engineering. Trends Biotechnol 1999, 17(2):53-60.
• [24]Varma A, Palsson BO: Metabolic flux balancing, basic concepts. Scientific and practical Use. Nat Biotech 1994, 12(10):994-998.
• [25]Nolan RP, Lee K: Dynamic model of CHO cell metabolism. Metab Eng 2011, 13(1):108-124.
• [26]Si Y, Yoon J, Lee K: Flux profile and modularity analysis of time-dependent metabolic changes of de novo adipocyte formation. American Journal of Physiology - Endocrinology And Metabolism 2007, 292(6):E1637-E1646.
• [27]Si Y, Shi H, Lee K: Impact of perturbed pyruvate metabolism on adipocyte triglyceride accumulation. Metab Eng 2009, 11(6):382-390.
• [28]Davies SL, James DC: Engineering Mammalian Cells for Recombinant Monoclonal Antibody Production. 2009, 6:153-173. http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-90-481-2245-5_8?LI=true webcite
• [29]Lee MS, Kim KW, Kim YH, Lee GM: Proteome analysis of antibody-expressing CHO cells in response to hyperosmotic pressure. Biotechnol Prog 2003, 19(6):1734-1741.
• [30]Fujimoto T, Ohsaki Y, Cheng J, Suzuki M, Shinohara Y: Lipid droplets, a classic organelle with new outfits. Histochemistry and Cell Biology 2008, 130(2):263-279.
• [31]Terzer M, Stelling J: Large-scale computation of elementary flux modes with bit pattern trees. Bioinformatics 2008, 24(19):2229-2235.
• [32]Han CY, Kargi AY, Omer M, Chan CK, Wabitsch M, O’Brien KD, Wight TN, Chait A: Differential effect of saturated and unsaturated free fatty acids on the generation of Monocyte adhesion and chemotactic factors by adipocytes. Diabetes 2010, 59(2):386-396. http://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org/content/59/2/386.long webcite
• [33]Conforti M, Cornuéjols G, Zambelli G: Polyhedral approaches to mixed integer linear programming. 2010, 343-385. [50 Years of Integer Programming 1958–2008]
• [34]GLPK (GNU linear programming kit). http://www.gnu.org/software/glpk webcite
• [35]Deng X: Complexity issues in bilevel linear programming. Multilevel optimization, algorithms and applications 1998, 20:149-164.
• [36]Neuner A, Heinzle E: Mixed glucose and lactate uptake by Corynebacterium glutamicum through metabolic engineering. Biotechnology Journal 2011, 6(3):318-329.
• [37]Rocha M, Maia P, Mendes R, Pinto J, Ferreira E, Nielsen J, Patil K, Rocha I: Natural computation meta-heuristics for the in silico optimization of microbial strains. BMC Bioinformatics 2008, 9(1):499. BioMed Central Full Text