Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-7cz98 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-24T19:08:52.980Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Modeling for understanding and engineering metabolism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 February 2025

Jens Nielsen*
Affiliation:
BioInnovation Institute, Copenhagen, Denmark Department of Life Sciences, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden Novo Nordisk Foundation Center for Biosustainability, Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby, Denmark Novo Nordisk Foundation Center for Basic Metabolic Research, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
Dina Petranovic
Affiliation:
Department of Life Sciences, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden Novo Nordisk Foundation Center for Biosustainability, Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby, Denmark
*
Corresponding author: Jens Nielsen; Email: jni@bii.dk
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Metabolism is at the core of all functions of living cells as it provides Gibbs free energy and building blocks for synthesis of macromolecules, which are necessary for structures, growth, and proliferation. Metabolism is a complex network composed of thousands of reactions catalyzed by enzymes involving many co-factors and metabolites. Traditionally it has been difficult to study metabolism as a whole network and most traditional efforts were therefore focused on specific metabolic pathways, enzymes, and metabolites. By using engineering principles of mathematical modeling to analyze and study metabolism, as well as engineer it, that is, design and build, new metabolic features, it is possible to gain many new fundamental insights as well as applications in biotechnology. Here, we present the history and basic principles of engineering metabolism, as well as the newest developments in the field. We are using examples of applications in: (1) production of protein pharmaceuticals and chemicals; (2) basic studies of metabolism; and (3) impacting health care. We will end by discussing how engineering metabolism can benefit from advances in artificial intelligence (AI)-based models.

Information

Type
Research Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press
Figure 0

Figure 1. Metabolic networks and how their fluxes can be regulated. (a) Illustration of a typical hairball metabolic network. Green dots are enzymes and the dots with different colors are metabolites interacting with the enzymes. The metabolites are color-coded according to their cellular compartment. Most metabolites are in the cytosol (yellow dots) and the mitochondria (red dots). (b) Simple representation of the different layers of regulation of flux through a reaction that converts metabolite A to B. The reaction is catalyzed by the enzyme Ei and the flux is a function of the catalytic capacity (turnover number) of this enzyme, that is, kcat,I, the concentration of the enzyme (Ei), and a function of the different metabolites in the network (f). In the simple model, there is feedback inhibition of the enzyme by metabolite C, and the flux is therefore determined by the concentration of the three metabolites A, B, and C. The enzyme concentration is determined by transcriptional regulation of the corresponding gene and by translational regulation of the corresponding mRNA. (c) Simple illustration of the concept of flux balancing. In this simple network, the three fluxes are constrained by a simple mass balance around the metabolite B. For most intracellular metabolites the turnover is so high that an assumption of steady state, resulting in the simple algebraic constraint equation, is reasonable. If the cells are experiencing a significant environmental change there will be a short period of time where the steady state assumption does not apply, but as the characteristic time constant for most metabolite concentrations, that is, the concentration of the metabolite divided by the flux through the metabolite, is in the order of seconds (rarely minutes), a new steady state level of the metabolites will rapidly be obtained. Therefore, the simple balance equation is in practice always valid.

Figure 1

Figure 2. Constraints of GEMs and how they impact flux estimation. (a) In simple flux balance analysis where model simulation is based on the mass balances illustrated in Figure 1c it is necessary to constrain either one input or one output flux combined with an objective function, here illustrated by maximizing the specific growth rate μ. This is often one of two options: (1) the substrate uptake rate is defined and there is optimized for growth rate, or (2) the growth rate is defined and there is minimized for substrate uptake rate. If rs is given and there is maximized for μ then the model will obviously not predict any product formation, that is, rp is zero. (b) By constraining the flux through each of the reactions by the enzyme turnover number (kcat) and the enzyme concentration (Ei) it is not necessary to constrain any input or output flux and the model therefore has better predictive strength. Either the enzyme concentrations can be given as input, or the sum of all enzyme concentrations is capped at a constant value that is consistent with experimental measurements.

Figure 2

Figure 3. Use of GEMs for integrative analysis of omics data. (a) Using the graphical structure of GEMs it is possible to identify Reporter Metabolites, which are metabolites in the metabolic network around which there are significant changes in transcript level or protein level. The lines represent enzyme-catalyzed reactions and the circles are metabolites. The thickness of the lines indicates the changes in enzyme levels, measured by transcripts or protein levels. Metabolites around which there are large changes in enzyme levels become reporter metabolites and the significance is marked by the greyness, with dark grey being very significant and light grey less significant. (b) The graphical structure of GEMs can enable the identification of Reporter Networks, which are sub-networks where there are significant changes in the transcription level or protein level. Two sub-networks are marked with light grey circles.

Author comment: Modeling for understanding and engineering metabolism — R0/PR1

Comments

Dear Bengt,

I am herewith submitting our paper for QRB entitled “Modeling for understanding and engineering metabolism”. I hope you will find it interesting. As reviewers I can suggest the following:

• Richard Zare, Stanford University

• Vassily Hatzimanikatis, EPFL

• Kiran Patil, University of Cambridge

I did not select any of the special issues as I am not sure if you had the paper in mind for any special issue, but it could fit with Frontiers in Computational Biophysics.

Looking forward to hearing back from you and seeing you in Hongkong next week!

Best wishes,

Jens

Review: Modeling for understanding and engineering metabolism — R0/PR2

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

Manuscript ID: QRBD-2024-0038

Overarching Comments

1. Request for greater clarity on what is being modeled

In many instances, the authors are referencing GEMs but do not always articulate what these GEMs are modeling. Is it flux-based analysis, optimization of media conditions/substrates for producing a specific product of interest, etc.? Additional clarity on this question would help the reader understand the real opportunities in applying these GEM approaches.

2. Do these models attain sufficient coverage of the metabolic reaction landscape?

By one estimate, yeast-GEMs have 4063 reactions, 2744 metabolites, and 1160 genes (https://metabolicatlas.org/explore/Yeast-GEM). It is not clear to this reader whether this represents a majority of metabolic reactions in yeast, and I suspect that this still significantly undercovers the yeast metabolic reactions. Can the authors comment on what proportion of the metabolic reaction space they estimate is covered by these modeling approaches?

Specific Comments

1. The authors state the following on page 2: “Today we consider metabolism to be almost completely mapped as we know most of the chemical entities and hence reactions that are occurring within living cells, but we don’t always know the identity and characteristics of the enzymes carrying out the reactions”

On what basis are the authors making this claim? Our lack of understanding extends beyond needing to know how the enzymes function. There are many “orphan metabolites”, which may be identified but carry out unknown function.

2. On page 2, the authors claim that the difficulty of engineering host metabolism is due to the efficiency “A major reason for this has been that it is often difficult to engineer the host metabolism in a way that uses most of the carbon atoms (from substrate) for production of the chemical/compound of interest.”

While the authors subsequently state that the underlying reasons for this poor efficiency is the (1) ‘hairball’ interactions between metabolites and enzymes and (2) extensive regulation of flux, there is a logical gap missing. Why do either of these reasons account for the inefficiency in metabolically engineering synthesis of a compound from carbon-based substrates?

3. On page 5, the authors state “Lactic acid bacteria cannot tolerate low pH and they require supplementation of complex feedstocks, and this makes it expensive and difficult to obtain pure lactic acid from these fermentation.”

As lactic acid bacteria can withstand low pH, thereby outcompeting other bacteria, the authors statement may not be correct.

4. At different points in the manuscript (page 8), it is pointed out that enzyme constrained GEMs have higher predictive strength.

As it is never clearly specified what are these models predicting, it is difficult to understand what makes these models superior to prior GEMs.

5. These findings are now taken forward in clinical trials to validate a biomarker approved for detection of recurrence in ccRCC patients from both urine and blood (pg. 9).

Please cite the clinical trial.

6. On page 10 “only few studies where causality between the human gut microbiome composition and disease development has been identified. The strongest data are in the field of cancer treatment with immune therapies where we have shown that the

presence of specific bacteria increases the response to treatment with check point inhibitors (Limeta et al., 2020).”

The authors may want to re-evaluate these claims. Even more than cancer immunotherapy, there is strong evidence to show that gut microbiome causally alters intestinal inflammation in colitis. An example reference is included below.

Zhu, W., M.G. Winter, M.X. Byndloss, L. Spiga, B.A. Duerkop, E.R. Hughes, L. Büttner, E. de Lima Romão, C.L. Behrendt, C.A. Lopez, et al 2018. Precision editing of the gut microbiota ameliorates colitis. Nature. 553:208–211. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature25172

Finally, let me express disbelief in the statement made early in the manuscript that almost all metabolic pathways have already been recognized.

Review: Modeling for understanding and engineering metabolism — R0/PR3

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

I enjoyed reading the review/perspective article by Nielsen and Petranovic. The manuscript provides a succinct overview of the vast field of metabolism and metabolic engineering. The historical and economic facts are provided throughout which keep the reader engaged as well as provides a broader context. There are a few minor errors/typos that need to be fixed:

1. Abstract: “…catalyzed by enzymes, co-factors and metabolites” -> this reads as if reactions are catalysed by metabolites. While this may be the case for few reactions, this is not general and usually not relevant at fast microbial kinetics.

2. Abstract: consider replacing “free energy” with ‘energetically favourable environment’

3. Introduction: consider avoiding “wizards”

4. Page 2, why metabolic engineering is difficult: The main reason is missing here – trade-off with growth, which is the evolutionary driving force that has shaped metabolism and regulation and thus it is difficult to drive fluxes away from growth to production.

5. Page 3: consider a paragraph break before “Following these initial models”

6. Page 7, last paragraph: consider changing “obtaining” to predicting or describing since the sentence refers to models.

7. Page 10: the latest estimates for number of microbial cells (not counting viruses though) in the human body suggests that it is in the same order as human cells.

Recommendation: Modeling for understanding and engineering metabolism — R0/PR4

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Decision: Modeling for understanding and engineering metabolism — R0/PR5

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Author comment: Modeling for understanding and engineering metabolism — R1/PR6

Comments

Dear Bengt,

Thanks a lot for excellent review comments! I believe that we have addressed all their comments in our revision that we also believe is an improved version of our paper.

Thanks

Jens

Recommendation: Modeling for understanding and engineering metabolism — R1/PR7

Comments

Congratulations to very nice paper! On my screen I has problems some symbols in figures jumping around. I am sure you can revise the illustration material to be as you wish it, when communicating with the production department.

Decision: Modeling for understanding and engineering metabolism — R1/PR8

Comments

No accompanying comment.