MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2043224026 · doi:10.2166/wst.2012.569

Genome-scale metabolic modeling to provide insight into the production of storage compounds during feast–famine cycles of activated sludge

2012· article· en· W2043224026 on OpenAlexafffund
Mohammad Tajparast, Dominic Frigon

Bibliographic record

VenueWater Science & Technology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMicrobial Metabolic Engineering and Bioproduction
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMcGill University
KeywordsGlycogenBioplasticActivated sludgeFlux balance analysisBiochemistryPolyhydroxyalkanoatesMetabolismChemistrySubstrate (aquarium)Flux (metallurgy)FamineBiologyFood scienceBacteriaOrganic chemistryWastewaterEnvironmental engineeringEcologyEnvironmental science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Studying storage metabolism during feast-famine cycles of activated sludge treatment systems provides profound insight in terms of both operational issues (e.g., foaming and bulking) and process optimization for the production of value added by-products (e.g., bioplastics). We examined the storage metabolism (including poly-β-hydroxybutyrate [PHB], glycogen, and triacylglycerols [TAGs]) during feast-famine cycles using two genome-scale metabolic models: Rhodococcus jostii RHA1 (iMT1174) and Escherichia coli K-12 (iAF1260) for growth on glucose, acetate, and succinate. The goal was to develop the proper objective function (OF) for the prediction of the main storage compound produced in activated sludge for given feast-famine cycle conditions. For the flux balance analysis, combinations of three OFs were tested. For all of them, the main OF was to maximize growth rates. Two additional sub-OFs were used: (1) minimization of biochemical fluxes, and (2) minimization of metabolic adjustments (MoMA) between the feast and famine periods. All (sub-)OFs predicted identical substrate-storage associations for the feast-famine growth of the above-mentioned metabolic models on a given substrate when glucose and acetate were set as sole carbon sources (i.e., glucose-glycogen and acetate-PHB), in agreement with experimental observations. However, in the case of succinate as substrate, the predictions depended on the network structure of the metabolic models such that the E. coli model predicted glycogen accumulation and the R. jostii model predicted PHB accumulation. While the accumulation of both PHB and glycogen was observed experimentally, PHB showed higher dynamics during an activated sludge feast-famine growth cycle with succinate as substrate. These results suggest that new modeling insights between metabolic predictions and population ecology will be necessary to properly predict metabolisms likely to emerge within the niches of activated sludge communities. Nonetheless, we believe that the development of this approach will help guide the optimization of the production of storage compounds as valuable by-products of wastewater treatment.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.209 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWater Science & TechnologySame topicMicrobial Metabolic Engineering and BioproductionFrench-language works237,207