constraint-based-model-output-integration
Summary
Integrate constraint-based metabolic model predictions (RPS flux predictions and FFD flux distributions) with transcriptomics-derived reaction activity scores (RAS) to discriminate whether metabolic flux variation is driven by transcriptional regulation, metabolic (substrate/allosteric) regulation, or both. This multi-layer regulatory classification uses Cohen's kappa concordance between pairwise RAS-vs-FFD and RPS-vs-FFD variation sign comparisons across cell-line pairs.
When to use
When you have (1) transcriptomics data and a metabolic network model with GPR rules to compute RAS scores; (2) constraint-based model predictions (RPS from optGpSampler or similar) quantifying how gene expression differences translate to flux differences; (3) intracellular metabolomics data enabling FFD predictions of how substrate availability changes translate to flux differences; and (4) you need to attribute observed flux changes to their regulatory origin (transcriptional vs. metabolic control) across multiple sample pairs.
When NOT to use
- Input model lacks GPR associations for >50% of reactions, as RAS computation and GPR-dependent filtering will substantially reduce the analyzable reaction set
- Metabolomics dataset has incomplete substrate coverage (i.e., >10% of reaction substrates are missing from measurements), because FFD predictions require known metabolite concentrations for mass action kinetics
- Only single-timepoint or cross-sectional data are available without biological replicates, preventing reliable computation of p-values and variation sign determination for t-tests and Mann–Whitney U tests
Inputs
- Constraint-based metabolic network model in SBML format with associated GPR (gene-protein-reaction) rules
- Transcriptomics dataset (RNA-seq read counts or FPKM) with multiple samples/cell-lines
- Intracellular metabolomics dataset (absolute or relative metabolite concentrations) for the same samples
- Pre-computed or newly generated RPS (Reaction Predicted Score) from optGpSampler flux sampling with transcriptomics constraints
- RAS (Reaction Activity Score) table computed from transcriptomics and GPR rules
- Pairwise cell-line comparison labels (e.g., 10 pairs from 5 cell lines)
Outputs
- Reaction classification table (CSV) with columns: reaction ID, RASvsFFD Cohen's kappa, RPSvsRAS Cohen's kappa, p-values, FDR-adjusted p-values, regulatory class assignment (combined/metabolic-only/transcriptional-only/unclassified)
- Sign concordance matrices showing variation sign (+1/0/−1) for RAS, RPS, and FFD across each pairwise comparison
- Statistical test results (t-test and Mann–Whitney U p-values) for RAS and RPS variation detection per cell-line pair
- FFD variation dataset with log₂ fold-change ratios for flux predictions derived from metabolomics across pairs
- Visualization of regulatory landscape (e.g., scatterplots or heatmaps of Cohen's kappa scores by regulatory class)
How to apply
First, compute RAS (Reaction Activity Score) for each reaction from transcriptomics data and GPR rules, representing enzyme abundance-driven regulation. Second, generate RPS (Reaction Predicted Score) by sampling the feasible flux regions of constraint-based models using optGpSampler with transcriptomics-constrained bounds, capturing how gene expression changes alone would alter fluxes. Third, compute FFD (Flux From Different metabolite concentrations) predictions using metabolomics data and mass action kinetics, capturing how substrate/product availability changes would alter fluxes. Fourth, for each reaction and each of the N pairwise cell-line comparisons, determine the sign of variation (up +1, down −1, no-change 0) for RAS using t-test and Mann–Whitney U test (p<0.05, fold-change ≥20%), for RPS using Mann–Whitney U on sampled flux distributions, and for FFD using log₂ fold-change ratios of metabolite concentrations. Fifth, calculate two Cohen's kappa coefficients per reaction: RASvsFFD and RPSvsRAS, each measuring concordance of variation signs across all N pairwise comparisons—positive kappa indicates consistent co-direction. Sixth, apply Benjamini–Hochberg FDR correction to empirical p-values derived from randomized RPS resampling (significance threshold FDR<5%). Finally, classify each reaction into four categories: (a) positive RASvsFFD AND positive RPSvsRAS = combined transcriptional and metabolic control; (b) positive RPSvsFFD AND negative RPSvsRAS = metabolic control only; (c) negative both with high RASvsFFD = transcriptional control only; (d) positive RPSvsRAS but negative RPSvsFFD = unclassified. Output a comprehensive classification table with reaction identifiers, both Cohen's kappa scores, adjusted p-values, and assigned regulatory class.
Related tools
- COBRApy (Constraint-based metabolic model construction, optGpSampler uniform sampling of flux distributions, and flux variability analysis)
- INTEGRATE pipeline (Steps 6–10) (Automated randomSampling of feasible flux regions, mannWhitneyUTest on sampled RPS distributions, rasTtest on RAS scores, createMetabolicDataset for FFD preparation, and concordanceAnalysis for Cohen's kappa calculation and regulatory classification) — https://github.com/qLSLab/integrate
- Mass action kinetics (via INTEGRATE Step 9) (Compute predicted flux changes from intracellular metabolomics (FFD) by applying mass action law to metabolite concentration ratios)
- Statistical testing: t-test and Mann–Whitney U (Determine statistical significance and direction of variation in RAS scores and RPS flux samples across cell-line pairs (p<0.05 threshold))
- Cohen's kappa concordance statistic (Measure agreement between variation signs (up/down/no-change) of RAS-vs-FFD and RPS-vs-RAS across pairwise comparisons; linear weighting applied)
- Benjamini–Hochberg FDR correction (Control false discovery rate on empirical p-values derived from randomized RPS resampling; threshold FDR<5%)
Examples
python pipeline/concordanceAnalysis.py --valLog 1.2 --weight linear --resultsMetabolomicFile resultsMetabolomic --metabolic_model ENGRO2_irrev.xml --lcellLines MCF102A SKBR3 MCF7 MDAMB231 MDAMB361 --meansFile medie_Met.csv
Evaluation signals
- Cohen's kappa coefficients fall within valid range (−1 to +1); positive values indicate concordant variation signs, negative values indicate discordant directions
- FDR-adjusted p-values derived from randomized resampling are correctly applied; all reported kappa values meet FDR<5% significance threshold
- All four regulatory classes (combined, metabolic-only, transcriptional-only, unclassified) are represented; class assignments are logically consistent with sign patterns (e.g., positive RASvsFFD AND positive RPSvsRAS → combined, not metabolic-only)
- Reactions with missing GPR associations or incomplete metabolomics substrate coverage are excluded from the concordance analysis; the final table documents filtering steps and justifies reaction losses
- Variation signs (−1, 0, +1) are consistent across RAS t-test/Mann–Whitney, RPS Mann–Whitney on flux samples, and FFD log₂ fold-change thresholds (fold-change ≥1.2 or ≥20% for p<0.05)
Limitations
- Reactions without GPR associations are excluded from RAS-RPS concordance analysis, potentially missing metabolically important reactions not tied to measured gene expression
- If any single reaction substrate is absent from the intracellular metabolomics dataset, the entire reaction is omitted from FFD analysis, reducing coverage when metabolite measurement is incomplete
- Direct determination of metabolic fluxes through labeled substrate tracers is not performed; RPS and FFD predictions are model-based and assume the constraint-based model accurately captures stoichiometry, reversibility, and flux constraints
- Cohen's kappa concordance requires consistent variation signs across multiple pairwise comparisons; transient or condition-specific regulation may be missed if sign direction changes between pairs
- FFD predictions depend on the validity of mass action kinetics and absolute metabolite concentration measurements; relative abundance data without absolute quantification may not accurately reflect flux changes
Evidence
- [other] For each of the 10 pairwise cell-line comparisons, compute the sign of variation (up +1, down −1, no-change 0) for RAS and RPS using t-test and Mann–Whitney U test (p<0.05) with fold-change threshold ≥20%. Compute the sign of FFD variation for each pair using Mann–Whitney U test on sampled flux distributions with log₂ fold-change ratio.: "compute the sign of variation (up +1, down −1, no-change 0) for RAS and RPS using t-test and Mann–Whitney U test (p<0.05) with fold-change threshold ≥20%. Compute the sign of FFD variation for each"
- [other] For each reaction, calculate two Cohen's kappa coefficients: RASvsFFD and RPSvsRAS, quantifying concordance of variation signs across the 10 pairwise comparisons.: "For each reaction, calculate two Cohen's kappa coefficients: RASvsFFD and RPSvsRAS, quantifying concordance of variation signs across the 10 pairwise comparisons."
- [other] Classify reactions into four categories: positive RASvsFFD and RPSvsRAS (combined transcriptional and metabolic), positive RPSvsFFD and negative RPSvsRAS (metabolic only), negative both scores with high RASvsFFD (transcriptional only), or positive RPSvsRAS but negative RPSvsFFD (unclassified/other).: "Classify reactions into four categories: positive RASvsFFD and RPSvsRAS (combined transcriptional and metabolic), positive RPSvsFFD and negative RPSvsRAS (metabolic only), negative both scores with"
- [other] Apply Benjamini–Hochberg FDR correction to empirical p-values derived from randomized RPS sampling to set significance threshold at FDR<5%.: "Apply Benjamini–Hochberg FDR correction to empirical p-values derived from randomized RPS sampling to set significance threshold at FDR<5%."
- [other] If one single reaction substrate is missing from the metabolomics measurements, the reaction is omitted from the dataset: "If one single reaction substrate is missing from the metabolomics measurements, the reaction is omitted from the dataset"
- [other] Missing RPSvsRAS values occur when a reaction is not associated with a GPR: "Missing RPSvsRAS values occur when a reaction is not associated with a GPR"
- [abstract] We discriminate fluxes regulated at the metabolic and/or gene expression level by intersecting these two outputs: "We discriminate fluxes regulated at the metabolic and/or gene expression level by intersecting these two outputs"
- [intro] Each metabolic flux depends on at least two intertwined regulatory layers [8–10]: "Each metabolic flux depends on at least two intertwined regulatory layers"
1---2name: constraint-based-model-output-integration3description: Use when when you have (1) transcriptomics data and a metabolic network model with GPR rules to compute RAS scores; (2) constraint-based model predictions (RPS from optGpSampler or similar) quantifying how gene expression differences translate to flux differences;4license: CC-BY-4.05---67# constraint-based-model-output-integration89## Summary1011Integrate constraint-based metabolic model predictions (RPS flux predictions and FFD flux distributions) with transcriptomics-derived reaction activity scores (RAS) to discriminate whether metabolic flux variation is driven by transcriptional regulation, metabolic (substrate/allosteric) regulation, or both. This multi-layer regulatory classification uses Cohen's kappa concordance between pairwise RAS-vs-FFD and RPS-vs-FFD variation sign comparisons across cell-line pairs.1213## When to use1415When you have (1) transcriptomics data and a metabolic network model with GPR rules to compute RAS scores; (2) constraint-based model predictions (RPS from optGpSampler or similar) quantifying how gene expression differences translate to flux differences; (3) intracellular metabolomics data enabling FFD predictions of how substrate availability changes translate to flux differences; and (4) you need to attribute observed flux changes to their regulatory origin (transcriptional vs. metabolic control) across multiple sample pairs.1617## When NOT to use1819- Input model lacks GPR associations for >50% of reactions, as RAS computation and GPR-dependent filtering will substantially reduce the analyzable reaction set20- Metabolomics dataset has incomplete substrate coverage (i.e., >10% of reaction substrates are missing from measurements), because FFD predictions require known metabolite concentrations for mass action kinetics21- Only single-timepoint or cross-sectional data are available without biological replicates, preventing reliable computation of p-values and variation sign determination for t-tests and Mann–Whitney U tests2223## Inputs2425- Constraint-based metabolic network model in SBML format with associated GPR (gene-protein-reaction) rules26- Transcriptomics dataset (RNA-seq read counts or FPKM) with multiple samples/cell-lines27- Intracellular metabolomics dataset (absolute or relative metabolite concentrations) for the same samples28- Pre-computed or newly generated RPS (Reaction Predicted Score) from optGpSampler flux sampling with transcriptomics constraints29- RAS (Reaction Activity Score) table computed from transcriptomics and GPR rules30- Pairwise cell-line comparison labels (e.g., 10 pairs from 5 cell lines)3132## Outputs3334- Reaction classification table (CSV) with columns: reaction ID, RASvsFFD Cohen's kappa, RPSvsRAS Cohen's kappa, p-values, FDR-adjusted p-values, regulatory class assignment (combined/metabolic-only/transcriptional-only/unclassified)35- Sign concordance matrices showing variation sign (+1/0/−1) for RAS, RPS, and FFD across each pairwise comparison36- Statistical test results (t-test and Mann–Whitney U p-values) for RAS and RPS variation detection per cell-line pair37- FFD variation dataset with log₂ fold-change ratios for flux predictions derived from metabolomics across pairs38- Visualization of regulatory landscape (e.g., scatterplots or heatmaps of Cohen's kappa scores by regulatory class)3940## How to apply4142First, compute RAS (Reaction Activity Score) for each reaction from transcriptomics data and GPR rules, representing enzyme abundance-driven regulation. Second, generate RPS (Reaction Predicted Score) by sampling the feasible flux regions of constraint-based models using optGpSampler with transcriptomics-constrained bounds, capturing how gene expression changes alone would alter fluxes. Third, compute FFD (Flux From Different metabolite concentrations) predictions using metabolomics data and mass action kinetics, capturing how substrate/product availability changes would alter fluxes. Fourth, for each reaction and each of the N pairwise cell-line comparisons, determine the sign of variation (up +1, down −1, no-change 0) for RAS using t-test and Mann–Whitney U test (p<0.05, fold-change ≥20%), for RPS using Mann–Whitney U on sampled flux distributions, and for FFD using log₂ fold-change ratios of metabolite concentrations. Fifth, calculate two Cohen's kappa coefficients per reaction: RASvsFFD and RPSvsRAS, each measuring concordance of variation signs across all N pairwise comparisons—positive kappa indicates consistent co-direction. Sixth, apply Benjamini–Hochberg FDR correction to empirical p-values derived from randomized RPS resampling (significance threshold FDR<5%). Finally, classify each reaction into four categories: (a) positive RASvsFFD AND positive RPSvsRAS = combined transcriptional and metabolic control; (b) positive RPSvsFFD AND negative RPSvsRAS = metabolic control only; (c) negative both with high RASvsFFD = transcriptional control only; (d) positive RPSvsRAS but negative RPSvsFFD = unclassified. Output a comprehensive classification table with reaction identifiers, both Cohen's kappa scores, adjusted p-values, and assigned regulatory class.4344## Related tools4546- **COBRApy** (Constraint-based metabolic model construction, optGpSampler uniform sampling of flux distributions, and flux variability analysis)47- **INTEGRATE pipeline (Steps 6–10)** (Automated randomSampling of feasible flux regions, mannWhitneyUTest on sampled RPS distributions, rasTtest on RAS scores, createMetabolicDataset for FFD preparation, and concordanceAnalysis for Cohen's kappa calculation and regulatory classification) — https://github.com/qLSLab/integrate48- **Mass action kinetics (via INTEGRATE Step 9)** (Compute predicted flux changes from intracellular metabolomics (FFD) by applying mass action law to metabolite concentration ratios)49- **Statistical testing: t-test and Mann–Whitney U** (Determine statistical significance and direction of variation in RAS scores and RPS flux samples across cell-line pairs (p<0.05 threshold))50- **Cohen's kappa concordance statistic** (Measure agreement between variation signs (up/down/no-change) of RAS-vs-FFD and RPS-vs-RAS across pairwise comparisons; linear weighting applied)51- **Benjamini–Hochberg FDR correction** (Control false discovery rate on empirical p-values derived from randomized RPS resampling; threshold FDR<5%)5253## Examples5455```56python pipeline/concordanceAnalysis.py --valLog 1.2 --weight linear --resultsMetabolomicFile resultsMetabolomic --metabolic_model ENGRO2_irrev.xml --lcellLines MCF102A SKBR3 MCF7 MDAMB231 MDAMB361 --meansFile medie_Met.csv57```5859## Evaluation signals6061- Cohen's kappa coefficients fall within valid range (−1 to +1); positive values indicate concordant variation signs, negative values indicate discordant directions62- FDR-adjusted p-values derived from randomized resampling are correctly applied; all reported kappa values meet FDR<5% significance threshold63- All four regulatory classes (combined, metabolic-only, transcriptional-only, unclassified) are represented; class assignments are logically consistent with sign patterns (e.g., positive RASvsFFD AND positive RPSvsRAS → combined, not metabolic-only)64- Reactions with missing GPR associations or incomplete metabolomics substrate coverage are excluded from the concordance analysis; the final table documents filtering steps and justifies reaction losses65- Variation signs (−1, 0, +1) are consistent across RAS t-test/Mann–Whitney, RPS Mann–Whitney on flux samples, and FFD log₂ fold-change thresholds (fold-change ≥1.2 or ≥20% for p<0.05)6667## Limitations6869- Reactions without GPR associations are excluded from RAS-RPS concordance analysis, potentially missing metabolically important reactions not tied to measured gene expression70- If any single reaction substrate is absent from the intracellular metabolomics dataset, the entire reaction is omitted from FFD analysis, reducing coverage when metabolite measurement is incomplete71- Direct determination of metabolic fluxes through labeled substrate tracers is not performed; RPS and FFD predictions are model-based and assume the constraint-based model accurately captures stoichiometry, reversibility, and flux constraints72- Cohen's kappa concordance requires consistent variation signs across multiple pairwise comparisons; transient or condition-specific regulation may be missed if sign direction changes between pairs73- FFD predictions depend on the validity of mass action kinetics and absolute metabolite concentration measurements; relative abundance data without absolute quantification may not accurately reflect flux changes7475## Evidence7677- [other] For each of the 10 pairwise cell-line comparisons, compute the sign of variation (up +1, down −1, no-change 0) for RAS and RPS using t-test and Mann–Whitney U test (p<0.05) with fold-change threshold ≥20%. Compute the sign of FFD variation for each pair using Mann–Whitney U test on sampled flux distributions with log₂ fold-change ratio.: "compute the sign of variation (up +1, down −1, no-change 0) for RAS and RPS using t-test and Mann–Whitney U test (p<0.05) with fold-change threshold ≥20%. Compute the sign of FFD variation for each"78- [other] For each reaction, calculate two Cohen's kappa coefficients: RASvsFFD and RPSvsRAS, quantifying concordance of variation signs across the 10 pairwise comparisons.: "For each reaction, calculate two Cohen's kappa coefficients: RASvsFFD and RPSvsRAS, quantifying concordance of variation signs across the 10 pairwise comparisons."79- [other] Classify reactions into four categories: positive RASvsFFD and RPSvsRAS (combined transcriptional and metabolic), positive RPSvsFFD and negative RPSvsRAS (metabolic only), negative both scores with high RASvsFFD (transcriptional only), or positive RPSvsRAS but negative RPSvsFFD (unclassified/other).: "Classify reactions into four categories: positive RASvsFFD and RPSvsRAS (combined transcriptional and metabolic), positive RPSvsFFD and negative RPSvsRAS (metabolic only), negative both scores with"80- [other] Apply Benjamini–Hochberg FDR correction to empirical p-values derived from randomized RPS sampling to set significance threshold at FDR<5%.: "Apply Benjamini–Hochberg FDR correction to empirical p-values derived from randomized RPS sampling to set significance threshold at FDR<5%."81- [other] If one single reaction substrate is missing from the metabolomics measurements, the reaction is omitted from the dataset: "If one single reaction substrate is missing from the metabolomics measurements, the reaction is omitted from the dataset"82- [other] Missing RPSvsRAS values occur when a reaction is not associated with a GPR: "Missing RPSvsRAS values occur when a reaction is not associated with a GPR"83- [abstract] We discriminate fluxes regulated at the metabolic and/or gene expression level by intersecting these two outputs: "We discriminate fluxes regulated at the metabolic and/or gene expression level by intersecting these two outputs"84- [intro] Each metabolic flux depends on at least two intertwined regulatory layers [8–10]: "Each metabolic flux depends on at least two intertwined regulatory layers"
HolobiomicsLab