Closed automator-metatlas closed 2 years ago
@Yu-sysbio here you can find the latest ecHumanGEM
files according to the suggested changes in conflicting grRules. Note that just 4 conflicting grRules were identified in the source GEM, and therefore ignored by GECKO.
@IVANDOMENZAIN Yes, I see. As those conflicting grRules were ignored by GECKO, the enzyme constraints would be not imposed for those corresponding reactions, right? Next it would be better to manually add back those constraints as I see "ATPasel" is in the list, which is a vital reaction for example in ecYeast model to contribute to the Crabtree effect simulation.
@IVANDOMENZAIN Yes, I see. As those conflicting grRules were ignored by GECKO, the enzyme constraints would be not imposed for those corresponding reactions, right? Next it would be better to manually add back those constraints as I see "ATPasel" is in the list, which is a vital reaction for example in ecYeast model to contribute to the Crabtree effect simulation.
@Yu-sysbio, you're right! ATPasel
is a crucial reaction for overflow metabolism in human cells, we don't really want to provide the models with free lunch! (ATP generation without an associated enzyme cost). We should create an issue in humanGEM maybe? in this way we can suggest our solution and also mention that this is motivated by the work in ecModels.
@IVANDOMENZAIN Yes, I see. As those conflicting grRules were ignored by GECKO, the enzyme constraints would be not imposed for those corresponding reactions, right? Next it would be better to manually add back those constraints as I see "ATPasel" is in the list, which is a vital reaction for example in ecYeast model to contribute to the Crabtree effect simulation.
@Yu-sysbio, you're right!
ATPasel
is a crucial reaction for overflow metabolism in human cells, we don't really want to provide the models with free lunch! (ATP generation without an associated enzyme cost). We should create an issue in humanGEM maybe? in this way we can suggest our solution and also mention that this is motivated by the work in ecModels.
@IVANDOMENZAIN Yes I agree that this would be more relevant to the base GEM. We can create the issue in humanGEM but I do not think there would be an effective way to solve this. By standardizing this conflicting grRule, another issue would come, i.e., a much longer string. Not sure if humanGEM guys have ever worked on this.
I think the above issue with the grRules has already been covered, with the last suggestion from @JonathanRob being:
Maybe we can manually curate this rule to get around this issue.
Yes, this is an unfortunate result of enzyme complexes that have a lot of interchangeable subunits, but I still think it should be feasible to reduce the rule into something better than its current form, even if it requires changing it to a slightly less accurate representation.
I wouldn't think an unconstrained ATPaseI
reaction would have much of an effect though, since it is consuming ATP, not producing it. For example, the ATP maintenance reaction HMR_3964
is the same (except it doesn't transport H+ to lysosome), and it doesn't have any grRule.
@IVANDOMENZAIN @Yu-sysbio welcome to bring the complex grRule issues to Human-GEM, where this could be fully solved.
I wouldn't think an unconstrained
ATPaseI
reaction would have much of an effect though, since it is consuming ATP, not producing it. For example, the ATP maintenance reactionHMR_3964
is the same (except it doesn't transport H+ to lysosome), and it doesn't have any grRule.
@JonathanRob Thanks for pointing this out. I just thought it as an ATP-producing reaction. Now that it consumes ATP then it would not affect simulations even if we do not impose enzyme constraints on this reaction. So @IVANDOMENZAIN it is no problem to just ignore this reaction right now.
@JonathanRob you're right! I also got confused thinking that it was an ATP consuming one, thanks for pointing it out. @Yu-sysbio after taking a look to the model outputs, I can see that ignoring the conflicting grRule for the ATPaseI
reaction prevented the inclusion of 31 isoenzyme reactions, probably those 31 different enzymatic complexes were erroneously formulated due to the non-standard grRule.
The issue in the PR seems to have been solved. We are opting for closing this PR, with the aim of introducing a new one with a more updated version of Human-GEM.