 Research article
 Open Access
Validation of a constraintbased model of Pichia pastoris metabolism under data scarcity
 Marta Tortajada^{1}Email author,
 Francisco Llaneras†^{2}Email author and
 Jesús Picó^{2}Email author
https://doi.org/10.1186/175205094115
© Tortajada et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2010
Received: 18 February 2010
Accepted: 17 August 2010
Published: 17 August 2010
Abstract
Background
Constraintbased models enable structured cellular representations in which intracellular kinetics are circumvented. These models, combined with experimental data, are useful analytical tools to estimate the state exhibited (the phenotype) by the cells at given pseudosteady conditions.
Results
In this contribution, a simplified constraintbased stoichiometric model of the metabolism of the yeast Pichia pastoris, a workhorse for heterologous protein expression, is validated against several experimental available datasets. Firstly, maximum theoretical growth yields are calculated and compared to the experimental ones. Secondly, possibility theory is applied to quantify the consistency between model and measurements. Finally, the biomass growth rate is excluded from the datasets and its prediction used to exemplify the capability of the model to calculate nonmeasured fluxes.
Conclusions
This contribution shows how a smallsized network can be assessed following a rational, quantitative procedure even when measurements are scarce and imprecise. This approach is particularly useful in lacking data scenarios.
Keywords
 Metabolic Network
 Flux Distribution
 Flux Vector
 Metabolic Flux Analysis
 Consistency Analysis
Background
The collection of biochemical reactions involved in the metabolism of a cell can be assembled in networks in order to carry out studies under a systemlevel approach [1]. Such analysis have been done with large, even genomescale, reconstructions of wellcharacterised organisms such as Escherichia coli, Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Pseudomonas putida[2–4], and also with simpler networks that consider only a few key metabolites [5–7].
in which c is a vector of metabolite concentrations and v is the vector of reaction rates, or fluxes, representing the mass flow through each of the n reactions in the network [8].
In order to avoid reaction kinetics, still rarely known, the internal metabolites are often assumed not to accumulate and thus (1) turns into a system of linear equations. Then, other constraints can be imposed; for instance, it is common to consider particular enzyme kinetics [9], thermodynamics [2, 10], or the irreversibility of certain reactions using inequalities. In this way, a constraintbased model can be assembled [11, 12].
By combination of this model and a set of measurable fluxes, the remaining ones can be estimated performing a metabolic flux analysis (MFA) [13]. It is even possible to incorporate intracellular measurements from stable isotope tracer experiments to apply 13CMFA [14, 15]. Unfortunately, these data are not available in most cases. Indeed, scarcity of measurements often results in practice in underdetermined systems, and therefore traditional MFA cannot be performed. In this context, a constraintbased approach that attempts to provide a range of candidate flux states instead of predicting the actual one with precision [11, 16] can be of use. In any case, MFA can only be performed using reasonably small networks with favourable structures: otherwise its underdeterminacy can be neither removed, even when tracer experiments are available, nor reduced enough to get valuable estimates with a constraintbased approach.
Besides, these mediumsized networks are derived from the known biochemical reactions involved in the metabolism of a cell, and rely necessarily on reductionist hypothesis, being their validation often insufficient. They are seldom validated against datasets different from the one of interest, which is thus inconveniently used both to validate the model and to perform the MFA analysis. Herein we discuss a procedure seeking for further validation of these networks.
The methylotrophic yeast Pichia pastoris is worldwide recognized as a reference platform for the expression of recombinant proteins in eukaryotes, due to the possibility to grow cultures to very high cell densities, its ability to produce posttranslational modifications, and the good protein yield/cost ratio. Heterologous genes are cloned under P. pastoris strong and tightly regulated alcohol oxidase promoter, and thus expressed when the cells grow on methanol as sole or combined carbon source.
The optimization of recombinant protein expression in P. pastoris has been usually addressed heuristically. Only a few publications [17–19] describe rational, modelbased optimisation and control of Pichia growth and protein production. Among these, semistructured, metabolismbased models representing intracellular behaviour are particularly rare [20, 21].
In the following sections, a constraintbased model of P. pastoris will be described and validated against the available experimental data. Then, its ability to predict nonmeasured fluxes will be illustrated by estimating the biomass growth rate. The potential use of the model for the estimation of intracellular fluxes will also be discussed. In summary, this work applies a systematic, yet simple, procedure to provide further validation for a smallsized model of P. pastoris, using only data from extracellular measurements.
Methods
Constraintbased model
Where v is the vector of reaction rates, or fluxes, representing the mass flow through each of the n reactions in the network, N is the stoichiometric matrix, and D is a diagonal matrix with D_{ ii }= 1 if the flux i is irreversible (otherwise 0).
The constraints in (2) define a space of feasible steadystate flux distributions, or flux states, which ideally comprises every theoretically possible phenotype: only flux vectors v that fulfill (2) are considered valid cellular states.
Consistency analysis
where e_{ m }represents the error or deviation between the actual fluxes v_{ m }and the measured values w_{ m }.
Where it is assumed that e_{ m }are distributed normally with zero mean value and have a variancecovariance matrix F. If only linear equality constraints are considered in $\mathcal{M}\mathcal{O}\mathcal{C}$, the residual ϕ is a stochastic variable following a χ^{2}distribution, and therefore a χ^{2}test can be used to detect and evaluate the inconsistency. The χ^{2}test is based upon statistical hypothesis testing to determine if the deviation is within expected experimental error [8]. However, we want to consider inequality constraints in (2), and therefore the χ^{2}test cannot be used because its assumptions are not fulfilled (ϕ does not follows a χ^{2}distribution anymore). Yet, the residual ϕ provides at least a rough indication of consistency.
Consistency analysis: Possibilistic MFA
The consistency analysis can also be formulated as a possibilistic constraint satisfaction problem, as it has been recently proposed in [16]. The basic idea is that a flux vector fulfilling the model constraints (2) and compatible with the measurements will be considered "possible", otherwise "impossible". This can be refined to cope with measurements errors by introducing the notion of "degree of possibility".
with α≥0 and β≥0, which are row vectors of measurement reliability coefficients.
The interpretation of (57) may be: "w_{ m }= v_{ m }is fully possible; the more w_{ m }differs from v_{ m }, the less possible such situation is". See the article for further technical details [16].
Defining two pairs of decision variables, there is more flexibility to represent the measurements in possibilistic terms: the user can assign the bounds ε_{2}^{ max }and μ_{2}^{ max }and the weights α and β. This way, each measurement is represented by a distribution of possibility (see examples in [16]). The bounds ε_{2}^{ max }and μ_{2}^{ max }define an interval of fully possible values (possibility π = 1). For instance, the user can choose a band of 10% around the measured value. The values α and β define the decreasing possibility to assign to values out of this interval (details below).
The possibility of the most possible solution being, ${\pi}_{\text{mp}}=\pi ({v}_{mp})={\text{e}}^{{\text{J}}^{\mathrm{max}}}$.
This degree of possibility provides an indication of the consistency between model ($\mathcal{M}\mathcal{O}\mathcal{C}$) and measurements ($\mathcal{M}\mathcal{E}\mathcal{C}$): a possibility equal to one must be interpreted as complete agreement between the model and the original measurements; lower values of possibility imply that certain error in the measurements is needed to find a flux vector fulfilling the model constraints.
Possibilistic estimation of nonmeasured fluxes
Possibilistic MFA also enables estimating the metabolic fluxes based on the model and the available measurements. The simplest pointwise estimate is the minimumcost flux vector resulting from (7), which contains the most possible value for each flux. However, a pointwise estimate is limited when multiple combinations might be reasonably possible. In this situation, a possibilistic interval estimate is a better choice.
The upper bound ${\text{v}}_{\text{i},\gamma}^{\text{M}}$ would be obtained by replacing minimum by maximum. Possibilistic intervals have a similar interpretation to "confidence intervals" ("credible intervals") in Bayesian statistics, and provide concise but rich flux estimates. Please refer to the abovementioned article for details on the possibilistic framework [16].
Results and Discussion
Metabolic Network of P. pastoris
The main catabolic pathways of the yeast P. pastoris (EmbdenMeyerhoffParnas pathway, citric acid cycle, pentose phosphate and fermentative pathways) are represented for growth on the substrates mainly used for its culture: glucose, glycerol and methanol. In this case, a mean biomass equation derived from the macromolecular composition of the yeast is used to summarize the anabolic pathways according to [22]. Key metabolites such as NAD, NADP, AcCoA, oxalacetate and pyruvate are considered in distinct cytosolic and mitochondrial pools. Several alternative biomass equations corresponding to Saccharomyces cerevisiae models coming from the literature [4, 23, 24] were also tested (data not shown) as detailed in the following sections, and found to provide similar results. However, it would be useful to evaluate the sensitivity with particularized P. pastoris biomass compositions, if available.
The model contains 45 compounds and 44 metabolic reactions. The balanced growth condition can be applied to 36 internal metabolites, resulting in a 36 × 44 stoichiometric matrix with 8 degrees of freedom (the matrix and the list of reactions is given in the additional file 1). As in [22], irreversibility is assumed for all reactions except for {28; 15; 2227; 29; 34}, and reaction 41 in order to account for glycerol uptake, resulting in the constraintbased model of the form (1), which is used hereinafter.
Elementary mode analysis
Elementary mode analysis provides a way to systematically identify a set of relevant pathways of a metabolic network [25–27]. The elementary modes (EM) are the simplest (steadystate) flux distribution that cells can show, whereas the remaining feasible states can be seen as its aggregated action (without cancelations of reversible fluxes). Moreover, the fact that they comprise all the simple pathways in the network, the functional states or nondecomposable vectors, makes it possible to investigate the infinite behaviours that cells can show by simply inspecting them. They have been used, for instance, to analyse pathways considering optimality [25, 28], determine minimal medium requirements [12], and infer viability of mutants [29].
Maximal Yields (Cmol DW mol^{1})
Glu  Glyc  Met  YTotal  EM 

x  4.93  32  
x  2.46  33  
x  0.82  37  
x  x  3.68  41  
x  x  2.25  38  
x  x  3.98  34  
x  x  x  3.47  85 
Experimental data and model consistency
Ref*  μ  Q_{Glu}  Q_{Gly}  Q_{Met}  Q_{et}  OUR  CPR  Q_{P}  Yields Exp./Theo.  Consistency**  

Cmol·kg^{1}·h^{1}  mol·kg^{1}·h^{1}  "  "  "  "  "  mg·g^{1}·h^{1}  Cmol DW/mol  "  ϕ  π  To π = 1  
D1  3.86  0.97  0.00  0.00  0.00  2.02  2.07  0.020  3.98  < 6.62  0.03  1.00  2% 
A1  1.88  0.00  1.09  0.00  0.00  2.16  1.56  0.000  1.73  < 2.46  0.28  1.00  7% 
A2  2.07  0.00  0.95  0.63  0.00  2.70  1.70  0.001  1.31  < 2.25  1.20  0.73  12% 
A3  1.72  0.00  0.74  1.48  0.00  3.90  2.10  0.014  0.77  < 2.25  2.81  0.25  20% 
A4  2.02  0.00  0.57  2.33  0.00  4.85  2.21  0.024  0.70  < 2.25  5.36  0.09  29% 
B1  6.17  0.00  2.75  0.00  0.00  3.62  2.35  0.000  2.24  < 2.46  0.07  1.00  4% 
B2  6.18  0.00  2.77  1.87  0.00  7.19  4.18  0.001  1.51  < 2.25  0.88  0.82  12% 
B3  6.24  0.00  2.23  2.73  0.00  7.20  3.60  0.012  1.26  < 2.25  2.34  0.32  19% 
C1  2.32  0.00  0.67  2.01  0.00  3.21  1.77  0.012  0.78  < 2.25  0.15  1.00  5% 
C2  2.32  0.00  0.28  3.18  0.00  3.79  2.09  0.021  0.63  < 2.25  0.74  1.00  10% 
C3  2.32  0.00  0.00  4.02  0.00  4.22  2.33  0.022  0.52  < 0.82  1.55 > 10  0.49  15% 
Random  010  010  010  010  010  010  010    99% > 10  < 0.1 99%    
Random  1.56  02  02.7  02.7  00.1  2.17.2  1.54    86%  < 0.1 95%   
Validation: experimental and theoretical yields
As a first validation, we checked that the experimental growth yields did not exceed the maximum theoretical ones given by the model (which were obtained by inspection of the elementary modes on each category). For instance, the theoretical yield for growth on glucose is 4.93, whereas the experimental one is 3.98 (Cmmol DW/mmol). The maximum yield on glycerol and methanol is 2.25, and the experimental ones at different ratios of glycerol and methanol range between 1.31 and 0.63. It also seems that the experimental yields decrease for combinations of substrates with lower theoretical yields.
Thus, no experimental yield violates the maximum theoretical ones (the contrary would indicate errors in the model because theoretical yields were obtained from it). However, the experimental yields tend to be lower than theoretical ones. There are several reasons for this deviation: (a) the model does not consider restrictions on energy cofactors, such as ATP, nor the resources devoted to recombinant protein production, (b) the EM analysis does not take into account the ratio between the different substrates in mixed cases, and (c) even if optimal pathways exist, the actual behaviour of cells does not necessarily makes use of them in terms of growth [25].
Validation: model and data consistency analysis
The datasets in Table 2 were also used to check that the experimental measurements, which reflect the metabolic state of cells, are feasible states according to the model. Two different analysis of consistency were performed: one based on minimized, varianceweighted sum of squared residuals (ϕ) and another one based on the possibility of the most possible flux state or vector (π). Both were described in the methods section. The possibilistic approach is preferred in this case because the analysis of least squares residuals has limitations due to the presence of inequality constraints in the model.
In all weighted least squares problems, a standard deviation of 10% is assigned to each measurement of the set trying to capture their uncertainty. The variancecovariance matrix F in (4) is defined accordingly.
 (a)
Full possibility (π = 1) is assigned to values near the measured ones, less than ± 5% deviation, to account for random errors.
 (b)
A decreasing possibility is assigned to larger deviations so that values with a deviation equal to ± 20% have a possibility of π = 0.1 (those values with a deviation of ± 9.5% will have possibility of π = 0.5).
This representation is achieved choosing the necessary bounds (ε_{2}^{ max }, μ_{2}^{ max }) and weights (α, β) for each measurement w_{ m }. Due to (a), the bounds are defined as ε_{2}^{max} = μ_{2}^{max} = 0.05·w_{ m }. Then we operate with equations (57) to achieve (b). From (5) we have that, 0.2·w_{ m }= ε_{1}^{20%} + ε_{2}^{max}, and from (6) and (7), log(0.1) = α·ε_{1}^{20%}. As a result we get that, α = log(0.1)/(0.20.05)/w_{ m }. Since uncertainty is symmetric, β = α.
The results for each dataset are shown in Table 2, where the values for ϕ and π(v_{ mp }) are given. The last column provides another indicator of consistency: the degree of measurements uncertainty needed to find a flux vector in full agreement with the model constraints (π = 1). All the computations were performed with MATLAB (MathWorks Inc., 2003), and YALMIP toolbox [31] was used to conduct Possibilistic MFA.
The consistency between model and experimental measurements is very high, but for a small set. In these cases, the inconsistency pinpoints especial characteristics of these sets of data, as explained below.
The dataset D1, which corresponds to Pichia growing on glucose, shows very good agreement. The measured data has full possibility (π = 1), meaning that there is a flux vector compatible with model and measurements. In fact, as shown in the last column, a band of 1% around the measured values is sufficient to enclose this flux vector. Notice also that the residual is very low.
Datasets A1 and A2, which correspond to cultures growing totally or mainly on glycerol and producing a small amount of protein, also show a good agreement. The discrepancy between measurements and model is larger for A3 (π = 0.25), but still a band of 10% of deviation around measurements encloses a flux vector compatible with the model. Dataset A3 corresponds to a culture growing mainly on methanol, but supplemented on glycerol, and producing larger amounts of protein. The discrepancy is larger for A4, which corresponds to a scenario with high protein productivity.
Similar results are obtained with cultures at a higher growth rate (datasets B1B3), B1 and B2 are highly consistent, while protein producing B3 shows similar behaviour to A3A4. This suggests the existence of nonmodelled phenomena, probably related with protein production. The agreement is quite good for the three datasets C1C3, but the increase of the discrepancy along with higher protein expression is also noticeable.
Finally, we used two batteries of random datasets to assess whether the model is indeed able to reject flux distribution that do not correspond to actual states of P. pastoris cultures. These datasets were defined taking random combinations of values for each flux within predefined bounds (see Table 2). Most of these random scenarios were highly inconsistent with the model (possibilities lower than 0.1 in 99% and 95% of the datasets, for each battery).
In summary, the constraintbased model shows acceptable agreement with the experimental data reported by different groups for P. pastoris cultures, and at the same time, rejects artificially generated invalid datasets. The scenarios with lower agreement pinpoint unmodelled phenomena, possibly related to protein expression.
Using the model to predict growth
The estimated growth rate is found to be in very good agreement with the measured one for the vast majority of the analysed scenarios (D1, A1, A3, A4, B1, B2, B3, C1 and C2), which correspond to cultures at different growth rates, using different substrates, and coming from three independent literature references. For two other scenarios (A2 and C3), the most possible estimate is still accurate.
The fact that, although limited, the model has predictive capacity provides further validation for this constraintbased representation. This conclusion is strengthened if we consider that the growth rate is highly interconnected along the whole network, since the biomass equation takes into account several metabolic precursors, and thus accurate correspondence between substrate uptake, respiratory fluxes and growth cannot be inferred in a straightforward way from the network.
Using the model to estimate the whole flux distribution
Once the model has been validated, possibilistic MFA could be used to estimate all the nonmeasured fluxes, either intracellular or extracellular, as done with the growth rate in the previous section. For illustration purpose, the flux distributions for each scenario are given in the additional file 3.
Notice that these estimations cannot be done by means of traditional MFA because the measurements would be insufficient to get a determined system.

Fluxes v _{2}, v _{3} and v _{4} belonging to the glycolysis pathway, are positive as expected in cultures grown in glucose, and appear inverted in glycerol and/or methanol fed cultures.

Fluxes v _{21}, v _{22} and v _{23} represent the isomerization of R5P into Ru5P and Xu5P. Note how v _{23} inverts its direction at growing methanol fluxes, as increased methanol consumption demands higher amounts of Xu5P thus requiring more R5P precursor.

Fluxes v _{32}, v _{33} and v _{34} represent the branchpoint related to methanol usage, that is, how this flux is split between direct oxidation and catabolic pathways. High methanol fluxes are necessarily conducted via CO_{2} generation and thus flux v _{34} becomes distinct from zero in A4, B4, C2 and C3 scenarios.
In this way, these results further validate the predictive capability of the model.
Conclusions
The consistency of a constraintbased model of Pichia pastoris has been validated in several experimental scenarios resulting in good agreement between estimations and measurements. In addition, the predictive capacity of the model for cell growth rate, an attractive target for industrial fermentation monitoring and control, has been verified. Interestingly, the accuracy of predictions worsens for higher protein producing scenarios, showing how the model, derived for a wildtype strain, is increasingly less precise as wider resources are devoted to recombinant protein generation.
It must be highlighted that the model has been strictly constructed upon firstprinciples and sensible hypothesis. At this point, the model can be curated, extended, and its parameters tuned in order to improve the consistency with the investigated scenarios. Particularly, energy requirements, strongly related to protein expression, are not yet considered within the model and future work will address this issue.
This contribution shows how a smallsized network can in general be assessed following a rational, quantitative procedure even when measurements are scarce. Possibilistic MFA becomes a useful tool to systematize this procedure. This approach enables validation considering the stoichiometric balances and also reactions reversibilities, and accounting for measurements imprecision. The use of Possibilistic MFA also makes it possible to predict nonmeasured fluxes without removing the network underdeterminancy. There is, however, a challenge when validating networks with higher number of degrees of freedom because there may be many flux vectors compatible with the (few) available measurements. It is expected that the datasets will be highly consistent, so the approach in this case would be to check if the model rejects the artificially generated invalid datasets.
When a validated model is available, ideally incorporating measurements for some intracellular fluxes, the kind of comparative analysis proposed herein will provide a insight on how the internal state of the cells determines its external behavior, and potentially lead intervention within cells, suggesting target metabolites or biochemical branchpoints and also allowing optimization through manipulation of extracellular variables, such as feeding strategies and substrate selection.
Acknowledgements
This research has been partially supported by the Spanish Government (2^{nd} and 3^{rd} authors are grateful to grants DPI200806880C0301 and A/016560/08). FLL is recipient of a fellowship from the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation (FPU AP20051442). The authors are grateful to the Company Biopolis for his support to this research.
Notes
Declarations
Authors’ Affiliations
References
 Palsson B: The challenges of in silico biology. Nature Biotechnol. 2002, 18 (11): 11471150. 10.1038/81125.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Feist AM, Henry CS, Reed JL, Krummenacker M, Joyce AR, Karp PD, Broadbelt LJ, Hatzimanikatis V, Palsson BO: A genomescale metabolic reconstruction for Escherichia coli K12 MG1655 that accounts for 1260 ORFs and thermodynamic information. Mol Syst Biol. 2007, 3: 121 10.1038/msb4100155PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Nogales J, Palsson BO, Thiele I: A genomescale metabolic reconstruction of Pseudomonas putida KT2440: iJN746 as a cell factory. BMC Systems Biol. 2008, 2: 7910.1186/17520509279.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Jin JS, Jeffries TW: Stoichiometric network constraints on xylose metabolism by recombinant Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Metab Eng. 2004, 6 (3): 22938. 10.1016/j.ymben.2003.11.006View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Nookaev I, Meechai A, Thammarongtham C, Laoteng K, Ruanglek V, Cheevadhanarak S, Nielsen J, Bhumiratana S: Identification of flux regulation coefficients from elementary flux modes: A systems biology tool for analysis of metabolic networks. Biotechnol Bioeng. 2007, 97 (6): 15351549. 10.1002/bit.21339View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Schuetz R, Kuepfer L, Sauer U: Systematic evaluation of objective functions for predicting intracellular fluxes in Escherichia coli. Mol Syst Biol. 2007, 3: 119 10.1038/msb4100162PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Teixeira AP, Alves C, Alves PM, Carrondo MJT, Oliveira R: Hybrid elementary flux analysis/nonparametric modeling: application for bioprocess control. BMC Bioinformatics. 2007, 8: 30 10.1186/14712105830PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Stephanopoulos GN, Aristidou AA: Metabolic Engineering: Principles and Methodologies. 1998, 725Google Scholar
 Visser D, van der Heijden R, Mauch K, Reuss M, Heijnen S: Tendency modeling: a new approach to obtain simplified kinetic models of metabolism applied to Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Metab Eng. 2000, 2 (3): 25275. 10.1006/mben.2000.0150View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Henry CS, Broadbelt LJ, Hatzimanikatis V: Thermodynamicsbased metabolic flux analysis. Biophys J. 2007, 92 (5): 1792805. 10.1529/biophysj.106.093138PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Llaneras F, Picó J: Stoichiometric modelling of cell metabolism. J Biosci Bioeng. 2008, 105 (1): 111. 10.1263/jbb.105.1View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Schilling CH, Palsson BO: Assessment of the metabolic capabilities of Haemophilus influenzae Rd through a genomescale pathway analysis. J Theor Biol. 2000, 203 (3): 249283. 10.1006/jtbi.2000.1088View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Heijden RT, Romein B, Heijnen JJ, Hellinga C, Luyben KC: Linear constraint relations in biochemical reaction systems: II. Diagnosis and estimation of gross errors. Biotechnol Bioeng. 1994, 43 (1): 1120. 10.1002/bit.260430104View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Sauer U: Metabolic networks in motion: 13Cbased flux analysis. Mol Syst Biol. 2006, 2: 62 10.1038/msb4100109PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Wiechert W: 13C metabolic flux analysis. Metab Eng. 2001, 3 (3): 195206. 10.1006/mben.2001.0187View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Llaneras F, Sala A, Picó J: A possibilistic framework for constraintbased metabolic flux analysis. BMC Syst Biol. 2009, 31 (3): 7910.1186/17520509379.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Cos O, Ramón R, Montesinos JL, Valero F: A simple modelbased control for Pichia pastoris allows a more efficient heterologous protein production bioprocess. Biotechnol Bioeng. 2006, 95 (1): 145154. 10.1002/bit.21005View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 DAnjou M, Daugulis AJ: A rational approach to improving productivity in recombinant Pichia pastoris fermentation. Biotechnol Bioeng. 2000, 72 (1): 111. 10.1002/10970290(20010105)72:1<1::AIDBIT1>3.0.CO;2T.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Jungo C, Marison I, Stockar U: Mixed feeds of glycerol and methanol can improve the performance of Pichia pastoris cultures: A quantitative study based on concentration gradients in transient continuous cultures. J Biotechnol. 2007, 128 (4): 82437. 10.1016/j.jbiotec.2006.12.024View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Ren HT, Yuan JQ, Bellgardt KH: Macrokinetic model for methylotrophic Pichia pastoris based on stoichiometric balance. J Biotechnol. 2003, 5, 106 (1): 5368. 10.1016/j.jbiotec.2003.08.003.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Solà A, Jouhten P, Maaheimo H, SánchezFerrando F, Szyperski T, Ferrer P: Metabolic flux profiling of Pichia pastoris grown on glycerol/methanol mixtures in chemostat cultures at low and high dilution rates. Microbiology. 2007, 153 (1): 28190. 10.1099/mic.0.292630View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Dragosits M, Stadlmann J, Albiol J, Baumann K, Maurer M, Gasser B, Sauer M, Altmann F, Ferrer P, Mattanovich D: The effect of temperature on the proteome of recombinant Pichia pastoris. J Proteome Res. 2009, 8 (3): 138092. 10.1021/pr8007623View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Çakir T, Kirdar B, Ülgen KO: Metabolic pathway analysis of yeast strengthens the bridge between transcriptomics and metabolic networks. Biotechnol Bioeng. 2004, 86 (3): 25160. 10.1002/bit.20020View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Cakir T, Kirdar B, Onsan ZI, Ulgen KO, Nielsen J: Effect of carbon source perturbations on transcriptional regulation of metabolic fluxes in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. BMC systems biology. 2007, 1: 18 10.1186/17520509118PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 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): 5360. 10.1016/S01677799(98)012906View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Schuster S, Hilgetag C, Woods JH, Fell DA: Reaction routes in biochemical reaction systems: algebraic properties, validated calculation procedure and example from nucleotide metabolism. J Math Biol. 2002, 45 (2): 153181. 10.1007/s002850200143View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Trinh CT, Wlaschin A, Srienc F: Elementary mode analysis: a useful metabolic pathway analysis tool for characterizing cellular metabolism. App Microbiol Biotechnol. 2009, 81 (5): 813826. 10.1007/s0025300817701.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Venkatesh KV, Gayen K: Analysis of optimal phenotypic space using elementary modes as applied to Corynebacterium glutamicum. BMC Bioinformatics. 2006, 7: 445 10.1186/147121057445PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Stelling J, Klamt S, Bettenbrock K, Schuster S, Gilles ED: Metabolic network structure determines key aspects of functionality and regulation. Nature. 2002, 420 (6912): 190193. 10.1038/nature01166View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Pfeiffer T, SánchezValdenebro I, Nuño JC, Montero F, Schuster S: METATOOL: for studying metabolic networks. Bioinformatics. 1999, 15 (3): 2517. 10.1093/bioinformatics/15.3.251View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Lofberg J: YALMIP: A toolbox for modeling and optimization in MATLAB. IEEE International Symposium on Computer Aided Control Systems Design. 2004, 284289.Google Scholar
 Klamt S, Schuster S, Gilles ED: Calculability analysis in underdetermined metabolic networks illustrated by a model of the central metabolism in purple nonsulfur bacteria. Biotechnol Bioeng. 2002, 77: 734751. 10.1002/bit.10153View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
Copyright
This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.