Leveraging genome-scale metabolic models to understand aerobic methanotrophs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Genome-scale metabolic models (GEMs) are valuable tools serving systems biology and metabolic engineering. However, GEMs are still an underestimated tool in informing microbial ecology. Since their first application for aerobic gammaproteobacterial methane oxidizers less than a decade ago, GEMs have substantially increased our understanding of the metabolism of methanotrophs, a microbial guild of high relevance for the natural and biotechnological mitigation of methane efflux to the atmosphere. Particularly, GEMs helped to elucidate critical metabolic and regulatory pathways of several methanotrophic strains, predicted microbial responses to environmental perturbations, and were used to model metabolic interactions in cocultures. Here, we conducted a systematic review of GEMs exploring aerobic methanotrophy, summarizing recent advances, pointing out weaknesses, and drawing out probable future uses of GEMs to improve our understanding of the ecology of methane oxidizers. We also focus on their potential to unravel causes and consequences when studying interactions of methane-oxidizing bacteria with other methanotrophs or members of microbial communities in general. This review aims to bridge the gap between applied sciences and microbial ecology research on methane oxidizers as model organisms and to provide an outlook for future studies.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".