COnstraint-Based Reconstruction and Analysis (COBRA) provides a molecular mechanistic framework for integrative analysis of experimental data and quantitative prediction of physicochemically and biochemically feasible phenotypic states. The COBRA Toolbox is a comprehensive software suite of interoperable COBRA methods. It has found widespread applications in biology, biomedicine, and biotechnology because its functions can be flexibly combined to implement tailored COBRA protocols for any biochemical network. Version 3.0 includes new methods for quality controlled reconstruction, modelling, topological analysis, strain and experimental design, network visualisation as well as network integration of chemoinformatic, metabolomic, transcriptomic, proteomic, and thermochemical data. New multi-lingual code integration also enables an expansion in COBRA application scope via high-precision, high-performance, and nonlinear numerical optimisation solvers for multi-scale, multi-cellular and reaction kinetic modelling, respectively. This protocol can be adapted for the generation and analysis of a constraint-based model in a wide variety of molecular systems biology scenarios. This protocol is an update to the COBRA Toolbox 1.0 and 2.0. The COBRA Toolbox 3.0 provides an unparalleled depth of constraint-based reconstruction and analysis methods. ]); 61 | The MUST sets are the sets of reactions that must increase or decrease their flux in order to achieve the desired phenotype in the mutant strain. As shown in Figure 6, the first order MUST sets are MustU and MustL while second order MUST sets are denoted as MustUU, MustLL, and MustUL. After parameters and constraints are defined, the functions findMustL and findMustU are run to determine the mustU and mustL sets, respectively. Define an ID of the run with:Each time the MUST sets are determined, folders are generated to read inputs and store outputs, i.e., reports. These folders are located in the directory defined by the uniquely defined runID.62 | In order to find the first order MUST sets, constraints should be defined: >> constrOpt = struct('rxnList', {{'EX_gluc', 'R75', 'EX_suc'}}, 'values', [-100; 0; 155.5]); 63 | The first order MUST set MustL is determined by running: >> [mustLSet, pos_mustL] = findMustL(model, minFluxesW, maxFluxesW, ... 'constrOpt', constrOpt, 'runID', runID);If runID is set to 'TestoptForceL', a folder TestoptForceL is created, in which two additional folders InputsMustL and OutputsMustL are created. The InputsMustL folder contains all the inputs required to run the function findMustL, while the OutputsMustL folder contains the mustL set found and a report that summarises all the inputs and outputs. In order to maintain a chronological order of computational experiments, the report is timestamped.64 | Display the reactions that belong to the mustL set using: >> disp(mustLSet) 65 | The first order MUST set MustU is determined by running: >> [mustUSet, pos_mustU] = findMustU(model, minFluxesW, maxFluxesW, ... 'constrOpt', constrOpt, 'runID', runID);...

Background Several genome-scale metabolic reconstruction software platforms have been developed and are being continuously updated. These tools have been widely applied to reconstruct metabolic models for hundreds of microorganisms ranging from important human pathogens to species of industrial relevance. However, these platforms, as yet, have not been systematically evaluated with respect to software quality, best potential uses and intrinsic capacity to generate high-quality, genome-scale metabolic models. It is therefore unclear for potential users which tool best fits the purpose of their research. Results In this work, we perform a systematic assessment of current genome-scale reconstruction software platforms. To meet our goal, we first define a list of features for assessing software quality related to genome-scale reconstruction. Subsequently, we use the feature list to evaluate the performance of each tool. To assess the similarity of the draft reconstructions to high-quality models, we compare each tool’s output networks with that of the high-quality, manually curated, models of Lactobacillus plantarum and Bordetella pertussis , representatives of gram-positive and gram-negative bacteria, respectively. We additionally compare draft reconstructions with a model of Pseudomonas putida to further confirm our findings. We show that none of the tools outperforms the others in all the defined features. Conclusions Model builders should carefully choose a tool (or combinations of tools) depending on the intended use of the metabolic model. They can use this benchmark study as a guide to select the best tool for their research. Finally, developers can also benefit from this evaluation by getting feedback to improve their software. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s13059-019-1769-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Genome-scale metabolic models have become the tool of choice for the global analysis of microorganism metabolism, and their reconstruction has attained high standards of quality and reliability. Improvements in this area have been accompanied by the development of some major platforms and databases, and an explosion of individual bioinformatics methods. Consequently, many recent models result from “à la carte” pipelines, combining the use of platforms, individual tools and biological expertise to enhance the quality of the reconstruction. Although very useful, introducing heterogeneous tools, that hardly interact with each other, causes loss of traceability and reproducibility in the reconstruction process. This represents a real obstacle, especially when considering less studied species whose metabolic reconstruction can greatly benefit from the comparison to good quality models of related organisms. This work proposes an adaptable workspace, AuReMe, for sustainable reconstructions or improvements of genome-scale metabolic models involving personalized pipelines. At each step, relevant information related to the modifications brought to the model by a method is stored. This ensures that the process is reproducible and documented regardless of the combination of tools used. Additionally, the workspace establishes a way to browse metabolic models and their metadata through the automatic generation of ad-hoc local wikis dedicated to monitoring and facilitating the process of reconstruction. AuReMe supports exploration and semantic query based on RDF databases. We illustrate how this workspace allowed handling, in an integrated way, the metabolic reconstructions of non-model organisms such as an extremophile bacterium or eukaryote algae. Among relevant applications, the latter reconstruction led to putative evolutionary insights of a metabolic pathway.

Several genome-scale metabolic reconstruction software platforms have been developed and are being continuously updated. These tools have been widely applied to reconstruct metabolic models for hundreds of microorganisms ranging from important human pathogens to species of industrial relevance. However, these platforms, as yet, have not been systematically evaluated with respect to software quality, best potential uses and intrinsic capacity to generate high-quality, genome-scale metabolic models. It is therefore unclear for potential users which tool best fits the purpose of their research. In this work, we performed a systematic assessment of the current genome-scale reconstruction software platforms. To meet our goal, we first defined a list of features for assessing software quality related to genome-scale reconstruction, which we expect to be useful for the potential users of these tools. Subsequently, we used the feature list to evaluate the performance of each tool. In order to assess the similarity of the draft reconstructions to high-quality models, we compared each tool's output networks with that of the high-quality, manually curated, models of Lactobacillus plantarum and Bordetella pertussis, representatives of gram-positive and gram-negative bacteria, respectively. We showed that none of the tools outperforms the others in all the defined features and that model builders should carefully choose a tool (or combinations of tools) depending on the intended use of the metabolic model. Author SummaryMetabolic networks that comprise biochemical reactions at genome-scale have become very useful to study and predict the phenotype of important microorganisms. Several software platforms exist to build these metabolic networks. Based on different approaches and utilizing a variety of databases it is, unfortunately, unclear what are the best scenarios to use each of these tools. Hence, to understand the potential uses of these tools, we created a list of relevant features for metabolic reconstruction and we evaluated the tools in all these categories. Here, we show that none of the tools is better than the other in all the evaluated categories; instead, each tool is more suitable for particular purposes. Therefore, users should carefully select the tool(s) that best fit the purpose of their research. This is the first time these tools are systematically evaluated and this overview can be used as a guide for selecting the correct tool(s) for each case. Current state of genome-scale reconstruction toolsHere we provide a brief description of the current reconstruction tools (see also S1 Table).AutoKEGGRec (2018). AutoKEEGRec [13] is an easy-to-use automated tool that uses the KEGG databases to create draft genome-scale models for any microorganism in that database. It runs in MATLAB and is compatible with COBRA Toolbox v3 [14]. One of the advantages of this tool is that multiple queries (microorganisms) can be processed in one run making it appropriate for cases where several microorganisms need to be reconstructe...