Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

feat: add a delta G field for reactions/metabolites #280

Closed
3 tasks done
feiranl opened this issue Apr 9, 2020 · 11 comments
Closed
3 tasks done

feat: add a delta G field for reactions/metabolites #280

feiranl opened this issue Apr 9, 2020 · 11 comments
Assignees
Labels
enhancement Possible enhancement that should be considered for future versions. feature A new function or new functionality for an existing function fixed in develop This issue is fixed and pushed to develop branch. Will be closed when fix appears in master branch.

Comments

@feiranl
Copy link

feiranl commented Apr 9, 2020

Description of the issue:

  • It would be great if delta G field can be added for each reaction/metabolite
  • Metacyc offers this information at pH 7.3 and ionic strength 0.25.

I hereby confirm that I have:

@haowang-bioinfo haowang-bioinfo self-assigned this Apr 9, 2020
@haowang-bioinfo
Copy link
Member

@feiranl thanks for posting the issue.

This could be a useful feature for GEMs. It can be added as a reaction-associated feature, according to the MetaCyc scheme.

@simas232 simas232 added the enhancement Possible enhancement that should be considered for future versions. label Apr 9, 2020
@simas232
Copy link
Collaborator

simas232 commented Apr 9, 2020

Nice idea! Should we consider using delta G values to determine reaction reversibility? At least, it would be nice to have such function in RAVEN beyond MetaCyc reconstruction module

@haowang-bioinfo
Copy link
Member

@simas232 if SEED applies this value for determining reversibility?

@haowang-bioinfo haowang-bioinfo added the feature A new function or new functionality for an existing function label Apr 9, 2020
@simas232
Copy link
Collaborator

simas232 commented Apr 9, 2020

Not sure about SEED, but I recall that GEMs with reaction reversibility info determined from delta G had feasibility problems. Let's think and discuss about this functionality over weeks before doing an actual implementation.

I hereby fully support delta G for rxns inclusion in RAVEN model structure. If we include the corresponding info for mets, we need to think how to store this. Probably in similar way like S matrix.

@edkerk
Copy link
Member

edkerk commented Apr 10, 2020

Interesting proposal, should this also stored in SBML when the model is exported? If so, in which field? As far as I know, SBML L3V1 FBCv2 does not have a field for such information.

@simas232
Copy link
Collaborator

Reaction specific delta G values can be stored in modelSBML.reaction.notes while using e.g. "deltaG:" identifier string

@edkerk
Copy link
Member

edkerk commented Apr 16, 2020

Which deltaG value should be stored? @feiranl mentions that MetaCyc provides this information at pH 7.3 and ionic strength 0.25. But the standard Gibbs free energy (ΔG°') is normally measured at pH 7. Probably not a major difference, but it would be good to define a specific condition and provide Gibbs free energies for those.

@haowang-bioinfo
Copy link
Member

@edkerk MetaCyc does provide deltaG only at unique condition (pH 7.3 and ionic strength 0.25). What other conditions do you suggest?

@edkerk
Copy link
Member

edkerk commented Apr 17, 2020

It is important to have a clear definition of the condition, as changing any parameter will change the Gibbs free energy. Standard Gibbs free energy (ΔG°') is defined at pH 7, 298 K and 1 M concentration of reactants. MetaCyc's condition at pH 7.3 is different, but probably close enough to not result in drastically different values.

What temperature is defined for MetaCyc's condition? It is important to define the condition precisely, because if a reaction is not in MetaCyc then the Gibbs free energy could be calculated by alternative approaches but it should then be for the same condition, so we don't end up with a model filled with Gibbs free energies from very different conditions.

While I would personally prefer standard Gibbs free energy (ΔG°') at pH 7, 298 K and 1 M, as this is even mentioned in biology textbooks, it is probably more convenient to use MetaCyc's condition (and it will not be so much different anyway).

tl;dr: Precisely define MetaCyc's condition and use the same condition for other methods to estimate deltaG values.

@simas232
Copy link
Collaborator

@Hao-Chalmers, there must be a basis why MetaCyc curators decided to include delta G values upon pH 7.3, not pH 7. Could you please write a quick question to them and ask about this? You may thereby ask about the availability of additional details for conditions these delta G values were measured upon (concentration of reactants and products, temperature, pressure).

@simas232 simas232 changed the title Add a delta G field for reactions/metabolites from RAVEN toolbox feat: add a delta G field for reactions/metabolites Dec 7, 2020
@edkerk
Copy link
Member

edkerk commented Jul 2, 2023

To support the work on yeast-GEM: SysBioChalmers/yeast-GEM#330.

The metDeltaG and rxnDeltaG fields are double vectors with same length as mets and rxns.

  • Add support by writeYAMLmodel and readYAMLmodel for handling the above fields.
  • Mention the fields in the field definition on the Wiki.
  • Add support of any other model-modifying function to handle the above fields.
  • Discussion point: Consider if there is a way that the above fields could be considered in SBML file, by importModel and exportModel.

@edkerk edkerk mentioned this issue Jul 15, 2023
1 task
@edkerk edkerk added the fixed in develop This issue is fixed and pushed to develop branch. Will be closed when fix appears in master branch. label Jul 15, 2023
@edkerk edkerk closed this as completed Jul 17, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement Possible enhancement that should be considered for future versions. feature A new function or new functionality for an existing function fixed in develop This issue is fixed and pushed to develop branch. Will be closed when fix appears in master branch.
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants