Abstract

Conventional metabolic flux analysis uses the information gained from determination of measurable fluxes and a steady-state assumption for intracellular metabolites to calculate the metabolic fluxes in a given metabolic network. The determination of intracellular fluxes depends heavily on the correctness of the assumed stoichiometry including the presence of all reactions with a noticeable impact on the model metabolite balances. Determination of fluxes in complex metabolic networks often requires the inclusion of NADH and NADPH balances, which are subject to controversial debate. Transhydrogenation reactions that transfer reduction equivalents from NADH to NADPH or vice versa can usually not be included in the stoichiometric model, because they result in singularities in the stoichiometric matrix. However, it is the NADPH balance that, to a large extent, determines the calculated flux through the pentose phosphate pathway. Hence, wrong assumptions on the presence or activity of transhydrogenation reactions will result in wrong estimations of the intracellular flux distribution. Using 13C tracer experiments and NMR analysis, flux analysis can be performed on the basis of only well established stoichiometric equations and measurements of the labeling state of intracellular metabolites. Neither NADH/NADPH balancing nor assumptions on energy yields need to be included to determine the intracellular fluxes. Because metabolite balancing methods and the use of 13C labeling measurements are two different approaches to the determination of intracellular fluxes, both methods can be used to verify each other or to discuss the origin and significance of deviations in the results. Flux analysis based entirely on metabolite balancing and flux analysis, including labeling information, have been performed independently for a wild-type strain of Aspergillus oryzae producing α-amylase. Two different nitrogen sources, NH4+ and NO3−, have been used to investigate the influence of the NADPH requirements on the intracellular flux distribution. The two different approaches to the calculation of fluxes are compared and deviations in the results are discussed. © 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Biotechnol Bioeng 58:254–257, 1998.

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.