Bridging Knowledge Gaps: How KEGG and Universal Databases Power Metabolic Network Reconstruction

Abstract

This article explores the critical role of universal biochemical databases, with a focus on the Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG), in addressing knowledge gaps in genome-scale metabolic models (GEMs). Gaps arising from incomplete genomic annotations hinder accurate predictions in biotechnology and biomedical research. We detail the foundational principles of databases like KEGG that serve as knowledge repositories for gap-filling algorithms. The article further examines a spectrum of computational methodologies, from established tools like fastGapFill to emerging machine learning techniques such as CHESHIRE and workflows like NICEgame. We also address common challenges in gap-filling, strategies for solution optimization, and provide a comparative analysis of tool performance in predicting metabolic phenotypes. This resource is tailored for researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals seeking to enhance the accuracy of metabolic models for applications in metabolic engineering and drug discovery.

The Bedrock of Knowledge: Understanding KEGG and Universal Biochemical Databases

Defining the Gap-Filling Problem in Genome-Scale Metabolic Models (GEMs)

Genome-scale metabolic models (GEMs) are mathematical representations of the metabolic network of an organism, connecting genomic information to cellular physiology [1]. The reconstruction of GEMs from an organism's genome sequence involves mapping annotated genes to the biochemical reactions they encode. However, imperfect genome annotations and incomplete biochemical knowledge mean that these draft models frequently contain metabolic gaps—disconnections in the metabolic network that prevent the synthesis of essential biomass components from available nutrients [2] [3].

The core of the gap-filling problem lies in identifying and resolving these disconnections by proposing a set of missing biochemical reactions that, when added to the model, restore metabolic functionality and enable the production of all required metabolites. This process is computationally challenging due to the vast space of possible reactions to consider from universal biochemical databases and the need to propose biologically plausible solutions [1] [3]. Gap-filling has evolved from simply enabling biomass production to incorporating multiple data types and addressing different types of network inconsistencies, making it a crucial step in creating predictive metabolic models.

The Critical Need for Gap-Filling in Metabolic Modeling

Origins and Impact of Metabolic Gaps

Metabolic gaps arise from several fundamental limitations in our knowledge and methodologies. Incomplete genome annotation fails to assign functions to many genes, while existing annotations may be incorrect [2]. Furthermore, biochemical databases themselves contain inconsistencies and incomplete information, propagating errors into metabolic reconstructions [4]. The consequences of these gaps are profound—gapped models cannot accurately predict cellular growth, essentiality, or metabolic phenotypes, limiting their utility in biotechnology and biomedical applications [2] [5].

The practical impact of unresolved gaps became evident in a comparative study of automated versus manual gap-filling for Bifidobacterium longum, where the automated solution achieved only 61.5% recall and 66.6% precision compared to manual curation [2]. This performance gap highlights the complexity of the problem and the continued need for expert biological knowledge in the curation process, particularly for reconciling multiple possible solutions that are mathematically equivalent but biologically distinct [2].

Implications for Drug Discovery and Microbial Community Modeling

The accuracy of gap-filling has direct implications for drug target identification. For pathogens like Vibrio parahaemolyticus, gap-filled GEMs enable the identification of essential metabolites critical for bacterial survival that may serve as targets for novel antimicrobial strategies [5]. In microbial community modeling, gap-filling individual organism models affects the prediction of cross-feeding interactions and community dynamics, as the metabolic secretions of one organism depend on a complete and accurate network reconstruction [3] [4].

Table 1: Quantitative Assessment of Gap-Filling Performance Across Studies

Organism/Context	Gap-Filling Method	Performance Metrics	Key Findings
Bifidobacterium longum	GenDev (Pathway Tools)	Recall: 61.5%, Precision: 66.6%	8 of 13 manually curated reactions correctly identified; 4 false positives [2]
926 GEMs (BiGG & AGORA)	CHESHIRE	Superior AUROC vs. NHP, C3MM, NVM	Outperformed other topology-based methods in recovering artificially removed reactions [1]
Bacterial phenotypes (10,538 tests)	gapseq	False negative rate: 6%	Outperformed CarveMe (32%) and ModelSEED (28%) in enzyme activity prediction [4]
Microbial communities	Community gap-filling	Enabled prediction of metabolic interactions	Resolved gaps while accounting for species interdependencies [3]

Universal Biochemical Databases as the Foundation for Gap-Filling

Universal biochemical databases serve as the reaction pools from which candidate reactions are drawn during gap-filling. These databases provide the essential chemical and taxonomic information needed to evaluate potential reactions for inclusion in a model [2] [5].

The Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) is frequently utilized in reconstruction pipelines. During the reconstruction of the VPA2061 model for Vibrio parahaemolyticus, KEGG provided the foundational metabolic data, including genes, reactions, enzymes, metabolites, and pathways for five bacterial subtypes [5]. The pathway-prioritized screening approach employed in this reconstruction preferentially selected gap-filling reactions from the same KEGG pathways as reactions flanking the metabolic gap, balancing biological interpretability with network connectivity [5].

Other essential databases include MetaCyc, which stores taxonomic range and reaction directionality information used by tools like the GenDev gap-filler in Pathway Tools [2], and the BiGG Models database, which provides curated metabolic reconstructions for benchmarking gap-filling algorithms [1]. The ModelSEED biochemistry database forms the basis for many automated reconstruction pipelines, though it often requires extensive curation to remove thermodynamic inconsistencies [4].

Methodological Approaches to Gap-Filling

Optimization-Based Gap-Filling Methods

Traditional gap-filling methods are primarily optimization-based, formulating the problem as a linear programming (LP) or mixed-integer linear programming (MILP) problem to find the minimal set of reactions that enable metabolic functionality [2] [3] [4]. The classic GapFill algorithm identified dead-end metabolites and added reactions from MetaCyc to resolve network gaps [3]. These methods typically require phenotypic data, such as known growth capabilities or nutrient utilization profiles, as input to identify inconsistencies between model predictions and experimental observations [1].

More advanced implementations like gapseq use LP-based gap-filling to enable biomass formation on a given medium while additionally filling gaps in metabolic functions supported by sequence homology evidence [4]. This approach reduces medium-specific biases in the resulting network structure. The community gap-filling algorithm extends this concept to microbial communities, resolving metabolic gaps across multiple organisms while accounting for their metabolic interactions [3].

Topology-Based and Machine Learning Approaches

Topology-based methods represent an alternative approach that uses only the network structure of the metabolic model without requiring phenotypic data. Methods like GapFind/GapFill and FastGapFill restore network connectivity based on flux consistency [1].

Recent advances apply machine learning to frame gap-filling as a hyperlink prediction problem on hypergraphs, where reactions are represented as hyperlinks connecting multiple metabolite nodes [1]. The CHESHIRE method uses a deep learning architecture with Chebyshev spectral graph convolutional networks to refine metabolite feature vectors and predict missing reactions purely from metabolic network topology [1]. This approach has demonstrated superior performance in recovering artificially removed reactions across hundreds of GEMs compared to earlier machine learning methods like Neural Hyperlink Predictor and C3MM [1].

Integrated Approaches Using Genomic Evidence

State-of-the-art tools like gapseq integrate genomic evidence with network topology to make more biologically informed gap-filling decisions. Unlike methods that rely solely on network connectivity or phenotypic data, gapseq uses sequence homology to reference proteins to identify and fill gaps in metabolic functions that are genomically supported but missing from the network [4]. This approach results in more versatile models that perform better under diverse environmental conditions and shows significantly lower false negative rates (6%) in predicting enzyme activities compared to other automated tools [4].

Experimental Protocols and Workflows

Standard Gap-Filling Workflow

The generalized gap-filling workflow involves multiple stages that can be adapted based on available data and tools. The process begins with draft network reconstruction from genomic data, followed by identification of network gaps such as dead-end metabolites or blocked reactions. Researchers then select an appropriate reaction database (KEGG, MetaCyc, ModelSEED, or BiGG) as the source for candidate reactions. The core gap-filling step applies computational algorithms (optimization-based, topology-based, or machine learning) to propose reaction additions. Finally, the proposed reactions undergo manual curation using biological knowledge to refine the solutions [2] [5] [4].

Diagram 1: Generalized Gap-Filling Workflow

Community Gap-Filling Protocol

For microbial communities, the gap-filling protocol must account for metabolic interactions between species. The community gap-filling algorithm involves compartmentalizing individual metabolic models to create a community model, identifying gaps that prevent community growth, and adding a minimal set of reactions from a reference database that restore growth while considering potential cross-feeding [3]. This approach was successfully applied to a synthetic community of auxotrophic E. coli strains and more complex communities of gut microbiota species [3].

Machine Learning-Based Gap-Filling with CHESHIRE

The CHESHIRE method implements a specialized workflow for topology-based gap-filling: (1) Hypergraph construction representing metabolites as nodes and reactions as hyperlinks; (2) Feature initialization using an encoder-based neural network to generate initial metabolite feature vectors; (3) Feature refinement with Chebyshev spectral graph convolutional networks to capture metabolite-metabolite interactions; (4) Pooling operations to integrate metabolite features into reaction-level representations; and (5) Scoring using a neural network to produce confidence scores for candidate reactions [1]. This method demonstrates that topological features alone contain significant information for predicting missing reactions.

Comparative Analysis of Gap-Filling Tools and Algorithms

Table 2: Methodological Comparison of Gap-Filling Approaches

Method	Underlying Approach	Data Requirements	Key Features	Performance Highlights
GenDev (Pathway Tools)	MILP optimization	Phenotypic data (growth conditions)	Taxonomic range and directionality constraints	61.5% recall, 66.6% precision vs. manual curation [2]
CHESHIRE	Deep learning on hypergraphs	Only network topology	Chebyshev spectral graph convolutional networks	Superior AUROC across 926 GEMs [1]
Community Gap-Filling	LP/MILP optimization	Community growth data	Resolves gaps at community level; predicts interactions	Enabled prediction of cross-feeding in gut microbiota [3]
gapseq	LP optimization with genomic evidence	Genomic sequence; optional phenotypic data	Integrates sequence homology; reduces medium bias	6% false negative rate for enzyme activity prediction [4]
FastGapFill	Flux consistency analysis	Network topology only	Fast identification of connectivity gaps	Early topology-based method [1]

Diagram 2: Gap-Filling Methods and Data Requirements

Table 3: Key Research Reagents and Computational Tools for Gap-Filling

Resource Type	Specific Tools/Databases	Function in Gap-Filling Research
Biochemical Databases	KEGG, MetaCyc, ModelSEED, BiGG	Provide reference reaction pools for candidate reaction selection [5] [3]
Reconstruction Software	Pathway Tools, CarveMe, ModelSEED, gapseq	Automated pipeline for draft model creation and gap-filling [2] [4]
Gap-Filling Algorithms	GenDev, CHESHIRE, Community Gap-Filling, FastGapFill	Core computational methods for identifying missing reactions [2] [1] [3]
Simulation Environments	COBRA Toolbox, SBMLsimulator, COMETS	Validate gap-filled models through flux simulation and phenotypic prediction [6] [3]
Model Validation Data	BacDive, phenotypic microarrays, mutant libraries	Experimental data for assessing gap-filling accuracy [4]

Gap-filling remains an essential but challenging step in metabolic model reconstruction, with significant implications for model accuracy and predictive capability. The integration of multiple evidence types—genomic, topological, and phenotypic—represents the most promising path forward for improving gap-filling accuracy [4]. As universal biochemical databases continue to expand and improve in quality, they will provide an increasingly solid foundation for gap-filling algorithms.

Future methodological developments will likely focus on machine learning approaches that can leverage the growing repository of curated metabolic models [1], while community-aware gap-filling will become increasingly important for modeling complex microbial ecosystems [3]. The ultimate goal remains the development of fully automated, highly accurate gap-filling methods that minimize the need for labor-intensive manual curation while producing models that faithfully capture an organism's metabolic capabilities.

The Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) represents a comprehensive knowledge base that integrates genomic, chemical, and systemic functional information to enable biological data interpretation in the context of cellular processes and organismal behaviors. Developed since 1995, KEGG has evolved into a foundational resource for researchers exploring high-level functions of biological systems using molecular-level datasets generated through genome sequencing and high-throughput experimental technologies [7] [8]. This database resource is structured around three principal pillars: pathway maps that diagram molecular interaction networks, ortholog groups that define conserved functional units across species, and reaction networks that describe chemical structure transformations. These core components collectively provide a framework for linking genomic information to higher-order biological functions, making KEGG particularly valuable for metabolic reconstruction, pathway analysis, and gap-filling research in incomplete genomic datasets [9]. The integration of these elements allows researchers to move beyond simple gene catalogs to understanding systemic functions, enabling predictions about metabolic capabilities even when genomic information remains partial or fragmented.

KEGG Pathway Maps: Molecular Interaction and Reaction Networks

Architecture and Classification System

KEGG PATHWAY serves as a centralized repository of manually drawn pathway maps representing current knowledge on molecular interaction, reaction, and relation networks [10]. These pathway maps are systematically organized into a hierarchical structure encompassing seven major categories: Metabolism, Genetic Information Processing, Environmental Information Processing, Cellular Processes, Organismal Systems, Human Diseases, and Drug Development [10] [8]. Each pathway map is identified by a unique identifier combining a 2-4 letter prefix code with a 5-digit number, where the prefix denotes the pathway type and the number indicates its specific classification within the KEGG system [10]. The pathway classification system enables precise navigation through biological processes, with metabolism pathways further subdivided into global/overview maps and specific metabolic pathways covering processes like phenylpropanoid biosynthesis, flavonoid biosynthesis, and various antibiotic synthesis pathways [10].

Table 1: KEGG Pathway Identifier Prefixes and Their Meanings

Prefix	Pathway Type	Description
map	Reference pathway	Manually drawn reference pathway
ko	Reference pathway	Highlights KEGG Orthology (KO) groups
ec	Reference metabolic pathway	Highlights Enzyme Commission (EC) numbers
rn	Reference metabolic pathway	Highlights reactions
	Organism-specific pathway	Generated by converting KOs to organism-specific gene identifiers
vg	Viruses pathway	Viruses pathway generated by converting KOs to geneIDs
vx	Viruses extended pathway	Includes synteny analysis data

Visualization and Interpretation

The KEGG pathway maps employ consistent visualization conventions where rectangular boxes typically represent enzymes or gene products, and circles represent metabolites or chemical substances [8]. These graphical representations are interactive, allowing researchers to click on elements to access detailed information about genes, enzymes, and metabolites. In experimental data visualization, color coding is frequently employed to represent differential expression or abundance, with red commonly indicating up-regulation and green indicating down-regulation [8]. The KEGG Mapper tool suite provides computational resources for mapping user data onto these pathway maps, enabling researchers to interpret their genomic, transcriptomic, or metabolomic datasets in the context of known biological pathways [7] [11]. This visualization capability is particularly valuable for identifying activated pathways, understanding metabolic regulation in disease states, and detecting functional modules within large-scale omics data.

KEGG Orthology (KO): Bridging Genomes and Biological Systems

Functional Orthologs and Molecular Networks

The KEGG Orthology (KO) database serves as a critical bridge connecting genomic information with higher-order biological systems through the concept of functional orthologs [12]. A KO entry represents a group of homologous proteins that share conserved functional characteristics, manually defined within the context of KEGG molecular networks including pathway maps, BRITE hierarchies, and KEGG modules. Each ortholog group is assigned a unique K number identifier (e.g., K00973), which serves as the fundamental unit for linking gene products to their functional roles across species [12]. The KO system employs a hierarchical classification structure organized into six top-level categories (09100 to 09160) for KEGG pathway maps and one top category (09180) for BRITE hierarchies, facilitating systematic functional annotation [12]. This orthology-based approach allows for consistent functional prediction and annotation transfer from experimentally characterized proteins to uncharacterized homologs across diverse organisms.

Genome Annotation and KO Assignment

KEGG provides sophisticated tools for genome annotation through KO assignment, which involves identifying appropriate K numbers for genes within a genome rather than providing simple text descriptions of functions [12]. The primary tools for this purpose include:

• KOALA (KEGG Orthology And Links Annotation): An internal annotation algorithm that uses a modified identity score considering both sequence identity and alignment length to assign K numbers [12].
• BlastKOALA: A web service utilizing BLAST searches against a curated set of KEGG GENES data followed by KO assignment using the newkoala algorithm [12].
• GhostKOALA: A similar service using GHOSTX for faster sequence comparison against KEGG GENES [12].

These annotation tools enable automatic reconstruction of KEGG pathways through the process of KEGG mapping, where a gene set is converted to a K number set and mapped onto pathway representations [12]. This approach facilitates the interpretation of high-level biological functions directly from genomic sequences, making it particularly valuable for analyzing newly sequenced organisms or metagenomic assemblies.

Reaction Modules and Chemical Network Analysis

Reaction Classes and Modular Organization

KEGG Reaction Modules (RModules) represent conserved sequences of chemical structure transformation patterns defined by sets of Reaction Class identifiers (RC numbers) [13]. Unlike KEGG modules defined by gene orthologs, reaction modules are derived purely from chemical structure transformation patterns along metabolic pathways without incorporating enzyme data [13]. This chemical-centric approach allows for the identification of conserved biochemical transformation motifs across diverse metabolic pathways. Reaction classes function as "reaction orthologs" that accommodate global structural differences between metabolites while preserving core chemical transformation patterns. Examples of these modules include RM001 (2-Oxocarboxylic acid chain extension by tricarboxylic acid pathway) and RM018 (Beta oxidation in acyl-CoA degradation), which represent fundamental biochemical transformation units [13].

Table 2: Representative KEGG Reaction Modules and Their Functions

Reaction Module ID	Name	Functional Role
RM001	2-Oxocarboxylic acid chain extension by tricarboxylic acid pathway	Chain elongation in carboxylic acid metabolism
RM002	Carboxyl to amino conversion using protective N-acetyl group	Basic amino acid synthesis
RM018	Beta oxidation in acyl-CoA degradation	Fatty acid degradation
RM020	Fatty acid synthesis using acetyl-CoA	Lipid biosynthesis (reversal of RM018)
RM022	Nucleotide sugar biosynthesis, type 1	Sugar activation and nucleotide sugar formation
RM008	Ortho-cleavage of dihydroxylated aromatic ring	Aromatic compound degradation (beta-ketoadipate pathway)
RM009	Meta-cleavage of dihydroxylated aromatic ring	Alternative aromatic compound degradation pathway

Integration with KEGG Modules

The relationship between reaction modules and KEGG modules reveals the fundamental architecture of metabolic networks. KEGG modules (M numbers) represent functional units defined by sets of KO identifiers for the enzymes involved, while reaction modules (RM numbers) describe the underlying chemical transformations [13]. The overview maps in KEGG illustrate the correspondence between these two perspectives, demonstrating how genetic and chemical networks align in metabolic pathways. For instance, the degradation capacity for aromatic compounds like benzene, toluene, and xylene can be traced through both module types: benzene is converted to catechol via M00548 (enzymatic module) or RM006 (reaction module), followed by ring cleavage through M00569/RM009 (meta-cleavage) or M00568/RM008 (ortho-cleavage) [13]. This dual representation enables researchers to analyze metabolic capabilities from both genetic and biochemical perspectives, enhancing gap-filling approaches in metabolic reconstruction.

KEGG in Gap-Filling Research: Methodologies and Applications

Computational Frameworks for Pathway Completion

KEGG's structured representation of biological knowledge enables sophisticated gap-filling methodologies that predict missing metabolic functions in incomplete genomic datasets. Gap-filling addresses the challenge that metabolic networks reconstructed from environmental genomes often contain gaps due to sequencing biases, novel protein families, and incomplete annotation databases [9]. Traditional approaches include network topology-based methods like Gapseq and rule-based methods using predefined KEGG module completeness cutoffs, as implemented in METABOLIC [9]. However, these methods often underestimate pathways in highly incomplete genomes. More advanced machine learning approaches have emerged, notably MetaPathPredict, which employs deep learning models trained on gene annotation features from high-quality genomes to predict the presence of KEGG metabolic modules even when annotation support is incomplete [9]. This tool demonstrates that robust predictions can be achieved with genomes as incomplete as 30%, significantly advancing gap-filling capabilities.

Diagram 1: MetaPathPredict workflow for KEGG module prediction

Genome-Scale Metabolic Network Reconstruction

The reconstruction of Genome-Scale Metabolic Network (GSMN) models represents a powerful systems biology approach for identifying potential drug targets and understanding pathogen physiology [5]. The standard workflow for GSMN reconstruction involves three main stages: (1) preliminary reconstruction using genomic data from KEGG, (2) manual curation including gap filling and standardization, and (3) simulation-based refinement to assess biomass synthesis capability [5]. A key application of this approach is demonstrated in the VPA2061 model for Vibrio parahaemolyticus, which comprises 2061 reactions and 1812 metabolites [5]. Through essential metabolite analysis and pathogen-host association screening, this model identified 10 essential metabolites critical for bacterial survival that serve as candidate targets for novel antimicrobial strategies [5]. The subsequent identification of 39 structural analogs for these essential metabolites further enables targeted drug design, demonstrating how KEGG-based metabolic models bridge genomic information and therapeutic development.

Table 3: Key Reagent Solutions for KEGG-Based Metabolic Reconstruction

Research Reagent/Resource	Type	Function in Analysis
KEGG PATHWAY Database	Database	Reference pathway maps for manual curation and validation
KEGG ORTHOLOGY (KO) Database	Database	Functional ortholog definitions for gene annotation
KEGG MODULE Database	Database	Predefined functional units for pathway completeness assessment
KEGG Compound Database	Database	Metabolic reactant and product structures for reaction balancing
BlastKOALA	Tool	Automated K number assignment for gene products
KEGG Mapper Color Tool	Tool	Visualization of user data on KEGG pathway maps
MetaPathPredict	Tool	Machine learning prediction of KEGG module presence in incomplete genomes
Structural Analog Databases (ChemSpider, PubChem, ChEBI, DrugBank)	Database	Identification of compound analogs for drug target development

Experimental Protocol for Drug Target Identification Using KEGG

The following methodology outlines a proven protocol for identifying potential drug targets through KEGG-based metabolic network reconstruction, adapted from successful applications in bacterial pathogens [5]:

• Data Acquisition and Preliminary Reconstruction

  • Retrieve metabolic data for target organism subtypes from KEGG database, including genes, metabolic reactions, enzymes, metabolites, and pathways.
  • Systematically organize and integrate datasets to preliminarily reconstruct the GSMN.
  • Compile reaction information including IDs, names, reaction equations, directionality, and stoichiometric balance.

• Manual Model Curation and Refinement

  • Supplement missing network information using KEGG pathway maps and RCLASS data.
  • Standardize metabolite chirality to biologically predominant forms (e.g., convert D-Glucose C00031 to alpha-D-Glucose C00267).
  • Remove redundant reactions according to criteria: multi-step reactions (retain overall if no branching), general reactions (remove class-based), incomplete reactions (remove undefined coefficients), macromolecular reactions (remove R-group containing), and duplicates.
  • Perform gap filling at pathway and global levels using KEGG-derived reactions, prioritizing reactions sharing pathways with gap-flanking reactions.

• Network Validation and Simulation

  • Add transport and exchange reactions based on phylogenetically related organisms with characterized models.
  • Assess biomass synthesis capability through flux balance analysis.
  • Iteratively refine model until accurate simulation of biomass production is achieved.

• Essentiality Analysis and Target Identification

  • Conduct essential metabolite analysis to identify compounds critical for pathogen survival.
  • Perform pathogen-host association screening to filter out metabolites common to host metabolism.
  • Identify structural analogs for essential metabolites using chemical databases (ChemSpider, PubChem, ChEBI, DrugBank).
  • Validate target potential through molecular docking analysis of essential metabolites and their structural analogs.

Diagram 2: KEGG components in metabolic reconstruction

KEGG's integrated framework of pathway maps, ortholog groups, and reaction modules provides an indispensable foundation for modern biological research, particularly in addressing the challenge of metabolic network gap-filling in incomplete genomic datasets. The structured representation of biological knowledge in KEGG enables both traditional homology-based approaches and advanced machine learning methods like MetaPathPredict to predict metabolic capabilities and identify potential therapeutic targets. As genomic sequencing continues to generate increasingly complex and fragmented datasets, KEGG's role as a central repository of curated biological knowledge becomes ever more critical. The continued development of computational tools that leverage KEGG's resources promises to enhance our ability to infer complete metabolic networks from partial genomic information, advancing both fundamental understanding of biological systems and applied drug discovery efforts.

In the field of systems biology, a primary challenge is the interpretation of genomic data to understand high-level cellular and organismal functions. The Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) was initiated in 1995 to address this challenge by providing a reference knowledge base for biological interpretation of genome sequences [14]. For gap-filling research—the process of identifying and filling missing components in metabolic pathways—KEGG serves as an indispensable resource. Its value lies in the integrated nature of its databases, which link genomic information with chemical reactions, metabolic pathways, and functional orthologs. This integration enables researchers to predict metabolic capabilities of organisms based on genomic data, even when those capabilities are not immediately evident from sequence alone. By representing biological systems as molecular interaction and reaction networks, KEGG provides the conceptual framework and data infrastructure necessary for computational prediction of missing enzymatic functions and pathway components [15] [14].

Core Components of the KEGG Database

The Chemical Foundation: Reactions and Metabolites

The chemical infrastructure of KEGG is built upon several interconnected databases that document the molecular components and transformations of biological systems. KEGG REACTION is a comprehensive database of biochemical reactions, primarily enzymatic reactions, containing all reactions present in KEGG metabolic pathway maps along with additional reactions from the Enzyme Nomenclature [15]. Each reaction is assigned a unique R number identifier (e.g., R00259 for the acetylation of L-glutamate), enabling precise tracking of chemical transformations across different biological contexts.

The KEGG COMPOUND and KEGG GLYCAN databases document metabolites and other small molecules, as well as glycans, respectively. These databases provide chemical structures, formulas, molecular weights, and links to the reactions and pathways in which these molecules participate. The integration of these chemical databases enables researchers to track molecular transformations across entire metabolic networks, a crucial capability for identifying gaps in metabolic pathways.

Table 1: Core Chemical Databases in KEGG LIGAND

Database Name	Identifier Prefix	Content Description	Primary Use in Gap-Filling
KEGG REACTION	R number	Biochemical reactions, mostly enzymatic	Identifying missing transformations in pathways
KEGG COMPOUND	C number	Metabolites and other small molecules	Identifying missing metabolites in pathways
KEGG GLYCAN	G number	Glycans	Tracing glycan biosynthesis pathways
KEGG RCLASS	RC number	Reaction classes based on transformation patterns	Grouping similar reactions for pattern recognition

A critical innovation in KEGG is the Reaction Class (RCLASS) system, which classifies reactions based on chemical structure transformation patterns of substrate-product pairs [15]. This classification uses KEGG atom types—68 classifications of C, N, O, S, and P atomic species that distinguish functional groups and atomic microenvironments. The RCLASS represents a form of "reaction orthology" that accommodates global structural differences of metabolites while focusing on the core chemical transformation, making it particularly valuable for identifying functionally similar enzymes that might fill gaps in metabolic pathways [15].

The Enzyme Coding System: From EC Numbers to K Numbers

The KEGG ENZYME database implements the Enzyme Nomenclature (EC number system) established by the IUBMB/IUPAC Biochemical Nomenclature Committee [16]. This database provides systematic information about enzymatic functions, including accepted names, systematic names, catalytic activities, and links to relevant literature. However, KEGG has evolved beyond relying solely on EC numbers as primary identifiers.

In the current KEGG framework, KEGG Orthology (KO) identifiers serve as the central hub linking genomic information to functional knowledge. Each K number represents an ortholog group that shares conserved functional characteristics [14]. This shift from EC numbers to K numbers addressed a fundamental limitation: while EC numbers represent experimentally characterized enzymatic activities, they do not inherently contain sequence information. The KO system connects these functional definitions with sequence data, enabling more reliable transfer of functional annotations across organisms [16] [14].

Table 2: Enzyme and Orthology Representation in KEGG

Identifier Type	Format	Source/Basis	Role in Pathway Reconstruction
EC number	1.1.1.1	IUBMB/IUPAC Enzyme Nomenclature	Standardized reaction classification
K number (KO)	K00001	Ortholog groups defined by sequence similarity and function	Linking genes to pathway modules
R number	R00259	Biochemical reactions in KEGG	Representing specific chemical transformations
RC number	RC00064	Reaction classes based on transformation patterns	Identifying conserved reaction patterns

The manual curation process for KO records includes associating them with protein sequence data from functional characterization experiments and relevant reference literature [14]. As of September 2015, references (PubMed links) and sequence data (GENES links) were included in 76% and 45%, respectively, of approximately 19,000 KO entries, establishing a solid foundation for reliable annotation transfer in gap-filling exercises [14].

Integrated Pathway Mapping

The KEGG PATHWAY database provides manually drawn pathway maps that represent molecular interaction, reaction, and relation networks [10]. These maps serve as reference frameworks against which researchers can compare their genomic data to identify missing components. Each pathway map is identified by a combination of a 2-4 letter prefix code and a 5-digit number, with prefixes indicating the type of representation:

• map: Manually drawn reference pathway
• ko: Reference pathway highlighting KOs
• ec: Reference metabolic pathway highlighting EC numbers
• rn: Reference metabolic pathway highlighting reactions
• <org>: Organism-specific pathway generated by converting KOs to gene IDs [10] [17]

This multi-layered representation allows researchers to view metabolic networks from different perspectives—focusing on chemical transformations (rn), enzymatic functions (ec), or evolutionary conserved ortholog groups (ko)—depending on the specific gap-filling task at hand.

Database Integration: Linking Reactions, Metabolites and Enzymes

The power of KEGG for gap-filling research emerges from the sophisticated integration of its component databases. This integration creates a network of knowledge where information can be traversed seamlessly from genomic sequences to metabolic functions.

The KEGG Orthology System as an Integration Hub

The KO system serves as the central integration point in KEGG, connecting genomic information with functional knowledge. K numbers are associated with ortholog groups defined by sequence similarity and functional conservation [14]. Each KO entry contains:

• Symbol and name identifying the functional ortholog group
• Pathway information linking the KO to relevant metabolic pathways
• Module information connecting the KO to functional modules
• BRITE hierarchies classifying the KO within functional categories
• Gene lists from various organisms that belong to the ortholog group
• Sequence data representing the ortholog group [18]

This organization enables a systematic approach to gap-filling: when a gene is annotated with a K number, it automatically inherits the functional context of that ortholog group, including its position in metabolic pathways and association with specific biochemical reactions.

Reaction Modules as Functional Units

Reaction modules represent conserved sequences of chemical structure transformation patterns defined by sets of Reaction Class identifiers (RC numbers) [13]. Unlike KEGG modules (defined by K numbers for enzymes), reaction modules are derived purely from chemical data without incorporating enzyme information, based on the analysis of chemical structure transformation patterns along metabolic pathways [13]. This dual perspective—gene-centric modules and chemistry-centric modules—provides complementary evidence for gap-filling.

Examples of reaction modules include:

• RM001: 2-Oxocarboxylic acid chain extension by tricarboxylic acid pathway
• RM018: Beta oxidation in acyl-CoA degradation
• RM020: Fatty acid synthesis using acetyl-CoA (reversal of RM018) [13]

The correspondence between gene-defined modules (M numbers) and reaction modules (RM numbers) reveals the evolutionary conservation of chemical transformation patterns across different organisms and enzyme systems. For instance, the BTX (benzene, toluene, xylene) degradation pathway can be represented both in terms of gene modules (M00548, M00538, etc.) and reaction modules (RM006, RM003, etc.), providing orthogonal evidence for pathway completeness [13].

Methodologies for Gap-Filling Research Using KEGG

Pathway Reconstruction and Completion

The standard methodology for gap-filling using KEGG involves systematic reconstruction of metabolic pathways from genomic data, followed by identification and prediction of missing components. The KEGG Mapper tool suite provides essential functionality for this process:

• Genome Annotation: Assign K numbers to genes in the target genome using BlastKOALA or GhostKOALA annotation servers, which utilize non-redundant pangenome data sets generated from the KEGG GENES database [14].

• Pathway Mapping: Map the annotated K numbers to KEGG pathway maps using the KEGG Mapper - Search Pathway tool to visualize present and missing pathway components.

• Gap Identification: Identify reactions in target pathways that lack corresponding gene annotations in the query genome.

• Candidate Gene Identification: Search for candidate genes that might fill the identified gaps using:

  • Sequence similarity against KOs known to catalyze the missing reactions
  • Genomic context analysis of neighboring genes
  • Reaction class analysis to identify isofunctional enzymes with divergent sequences

• Experimental Validation Design: Design experiments to verify predicted functions of candidate genes based on metabolic profiling and enzyme activity assays.

Pathway Prediction Tools

KEGG provides specialized tools for predicting metabolic pathways, particularly for biodegradation and biosynthesis of compounds:

• PathPred: Predicts biodegradation/biosynthetic pathways for given compounds based on reaction module patterns and known pathway templates [15].

• E-zyme: Automatically assigns EC numbers to substrate-product pairs based on chemical transformation patterns, enabling functional prediction of uncharacterized enzymes [15].

The experimental protocol for using these tools involves:

• Input Preparation:

  • For PathPred: Provide the compound identifier (C number) or chemical structure of the target compound
  • For E-zyme: Provide substrate and product structures or identifiers

• Pathway Analysis:

  • PathPred returns possible pathway routes with similarity scores to known pathways
  • E-zyme returns possible EC numbers with confidence measures

• Result Interpretation:

  • Evaluate pathway completeness based on presence of required enzymes in the target genome
  • Identify missing steps that require gap-filling candidates
  • Consider alternative pathways with different enzyme requirements

Reaction Module Analysis for Pathway Evolution

The analysis of reaction modules provides a methodology for understanding pathway evolution and identifying alternative enzymes that can fill functional roles:

• Identify Reaction Modules: Decompose target pathways into their constituent reaction modules using the KEGG MODULE database and RM numbers [13].

• Compare Module Conservation: Examine the conservation of reaction modules across different taxonomic groups to identify evolutionarily stable functional units.

• Search for Isofunctional Modules: Identify different gene modules (M numbers) that implement the same reaction module (RM number), revealing evolutionary solutions to the same chemical transformation.

• Predict Alternative Pathway Completions: Based on conserved reaction modules, predict possible alternative implementations of missing pathway steps using different enzyme combinations.

Table 3: Essential Research Reagent Solutions in KEGG Gap-Filling

Resource Type	Specific Examples	Function in Gap-Filling Research
Annotation Servers	BlastKOALA, GhostKOALA	High-throughput K number assignment for genome annotation
Pathway Mapping Tools	KEGG Mapper, Search Pathway	Visualization of present and missing pathway components
Prediction Tools	PathPred, E-zyme	Prediction of metabolic pathways and enzyme functions
API Access	KEGG REST API	Programmatic access for large-scale analyses
Modular Resources	KEGG MODULE, Reaction Modules	Identification of conserved functional units
Chemical Tools	RCLASS, RPAIR	Analysis of chemical transformation patterns

Accessing KEGG: Programmatic Methods and Data Retrieval

For large-scale gap-filling analyses, programmatic access to KEGG is essential. The KEGG API provides a REST-style interface for retrieving data from all KEGG databases [19]. The basic URL format is:

Essential operations include:

• info: Get database statistics and release information
• list: Obtain lists of entry identifiers and names
• find: Search for entries matching query keywords
• get: Retrieve database entries in flat file format
• conv: Convert identifiers between KEGG and external databases
• link: Create links between KEGG databases [19]

Example usage for gap-filling research:

• Retrieve all reactions for a pathway:

• Find enzymes for a specific reaction:

• Get orthologs for an enzyme:

• Retrieve organism-specific genes for a KO:

The KGML (KEGG Markup Language) format provides computational access to pathway structure and topology, enabling advanced analyses of pathway connectivity and gap identification [17]. KGML files can be obtained through the KEGG API or via "Download KGML" links on pathway pages, supporting computational modeling of metabolic networks and systematic identification of missing components.

KEGG represents a comprehensive framework for understanding and analyzing biological systems through its integrated representation of reactions, metabolites, and enzyme codes. For gap-filling research, KEGG provides both the reference knowledge and computational tools necessary to identify missing components in metabolic pathways and predict candidate genes to fill these gaps. The power of KEGG lies in its multi-layered integration—connecting genomic sequences through KO groups to biochemical reactions and metabolic pathways, while maintaining complementary perspectives through gene-centric modules and chemistry-centric reaction modules.

As genomic data continues to grow exponentially, the role of integrated databases like KEGG in gap-filling research becomes increasingly critical. The structured organization of chemical, genomic, and systems information enables researchers to move beyond simple sequence annotation to meaningful functional prediction and pathway reconstruction. Future developments in KEGG will likely enhance these capabilities through expanded coverage of enzyme functions, improved integration of chemical knowledge, and more sophisticated prediction algorithms—further solidifying its role as a universal database for bridging gaps in our understanding of biological systems.

Metabolism is crucial for all living cells as it provides energy and molecular building blocks for all biological functions. Systematically understanding metabolism is therefore critically important in both medical research and synthetic biology for engineering cells [20]. Over the last decade, researchers have built genome-scale metabolic models (GEMs) to simulate the complete known metabolism of organisms of interest. However, these models contain significant knowledge gaps stemming from unannotated and misannotated genes, promiscuous enzymes, unknown reactions and pathways, and underground metabolism [20]. A detailed understanding of these cellular functions drives biomedical applications such as drug-targeting strategies and enables the efficient design of cell factories for producing valuable chemicals and pharmaceuticals [20].

The functionality of a considerable portion of each genome remains undefined, with even well-characterized organisms like Escherichia coli lacking annotation for approximately 35% of its genes [21]. Universal biochemical databases like KEGG play a pivotal role in gap-filling research by providing curated repositories of known biochemical knowledge that serve as reference points for identifying and reconciling these metabolic gaps, though they are limited to known biochemistry.

Metabolic gaps in GEMs primarily originate from two fundamental sources: missing gene annotations and incomplete biochemistry.

Missing Gene Annotations

Missing gene annotations occur when genes within a genome have not been assigned a specific biochemical function. This represents a significant challenge for constructing accurate GEMs, which rely on gene-protein-reaction (GPR) associations to simulate metabolic capabilities [21]. In the context of GEMs, this manifests as:

• False essentiality predictions: Cases where models incorrectly predict that a gene is essential for growth despite experimental evidence showing the organism can survive without it [21].
• Incomplete network connectivity: Metabolic networks that contain dead-end metabolites or interrupted pathways due to missing enzyme functions.

Incomplete Biochemistry

Incomplete biochemistry refers to the limitation of existing biochemical databases to only include previously observed and characterized reactions, potentially missing:

• Underground metabolism: Native promiscuous activities of enzymes that are not their primary function [20].
• Novel enzyme functions: Biochemical capabilities that exist in nature but have not yet been discovered or characterized [20].
• Hypothetical reactions: Thermochemically feasible transformations between known metabolites that have not been experimentally verified [20].

The limitations of database-dependent approaches become apparent when considering that earlier gap-filling methods relying solely on known biochemical databases like KEGG offer limited solutions. In a case study of E. coli, the average number of solutions per rescued reaction was only 2.3 when using KEGG, compared to 252.5 when using the ATLAS database of known and hypothetical reactions [20].

Table 1: Quantitative Comparison of Gap-Filling Reaction Databases

Database	Type of Content	Number of Reactions	Average Solutions per Rescued Reaction	Gaps Rescued in E. coli iML1515
KEGG	Known biochemical reactions	Limited to characterized reactions	2.3	53/152 (35%)
ATLAS of Biochemistry	Known + hypothetical reactions	~150,000 putative reactions	252.5	93/152 (61%)

Methodologies for Identification and Resolution

The NICEgame Workflow for Gap Identification and Curation

Network Integrated Computational Explorer for Gap Annotation of Metabolism (NICEgame) is a computational workflow specifically designed to characterize and curate metabolic gaps using both known and hypothetical reactions [21]. This workflow represents a significant advancement over traditional methods by systematically exploring beyond known biochemistry.

The NICEgame workflow involves seven main steps [21]:

• Harmonization of metabolite annotations with the ATLAS of Biochemistry to ensure proper connectivity.
• Preprocessing of the GEM and identification of metabolic gaps by comparing in silico and in vitro gene knockout experiments.
• Merging the GEM with the ATLAS of Biochemistry to create an ATLAS-merged GEM.
• Comparative essentiality analysis to identify reactions or genes that are essential in the original GEM but dispensable in the ATLAS-merged GEM (designated as "rescued").
• Systematic identification of alternative biochemistry for the rescued reactions or genes.
• Evaluation and ranking of all alternative biochemistry based on multiple criteria.
• Identification of potential genes using the BridgIT tool to catalyze the top-ranked suggested biochemistry.

Diagram 1: The NICEgame workflow for metabolic gap identification and resolution.

Community-Level Gap-Filling Algorithm

For microbial communities, a specialized gap-filling approach considers metabolic interactions between species that coexist. This method resolves metabolic gaps in individual metabolic reconstructions while considering potential metabolic cross-feeding and other interactions in the community [22]. This approach is particularly valuable for organisms that cannot be easily cultivated in isolation due to complex metabolic interdependencies.

The community gap-filling algorithm:

• Combines incomplete metabolic reconstructions of microorganisms known to coexist.
• Permits metabolic interactions during the gap-filling process.
• Identifies non-intuitive metabolic interdependencies that are difficult to discover experimentally [22].
• Restores growth in metabolic models while predicting both cooperative and competitive metabolic interactions.

This method has been successfully applied to a synthetic community of auxotrophic E. coli strains, a community of Bifidobacterium adolescentis and Faecalibacterium prausnitzii from the human gut microbiota, and a community of Dehalobacter and Bacteroidales species [22].

Experimental Protocol: Essentiality Analysis for Gap Identification

A critical component of metabolic gap identification involves comparing computational predictions with experimental data to pinpoint discrepancies indicating missing metabolism.

Materials and Experimental Setup:

• Organism: Escherichia coli strain MG1655
• Growth Medium: Glucose minimal media
• Genetic Material: Single-gene knockout library
• Analysis Tools: Genome-scale metabolic model iML1515

Methodology:

• Perform in silico essentiality analysis using the GEM under defined conditions (e.g., glucose minimal media) [21].
• Compare computational predictions with experimental phenotype data from single-gene knockout studies [21].
• Identify false essentiality predictions - genes that the model predicts are essential but experimental data shows are non-essential [21].
• Map these false essentiality predictions to the corresponding reactions in the metabolic network [21].

In the application of NICEgame to E. coli GEM iML1515, this process identified 148 false-negative genes corresponding to 152 false-negative essential reactions [21]. These represent metabolic gaps where the model lacks biochemistry that clearly exists in the actual organism.

Table 2: Key Research Reagents and Computational Tools for Metabolic Gap-Filling

Resource Name	Type	Primary Function	Application in Gap-Filling
KEGG Database	Biochemical Database	Repository of known biochemical pathways and reactions	Reference database of known biochemistry for traditional gap-filling [20]
ATLAS of Biochemistry	Expanded Reaction Database	Database of ~150,000 known and hypothetical biochemical reactions	Provides hypothetical reactions to explore biochemical space beyond known reactions [20] [21]
BridgIT	Computational Tool	Maps biochemical reactions to potential enzyme-coding genes	Identifies candidate genes for catalyzing proposed gap-filling reactions [20] [21]
Gene Knockout Libraries	Experimental Resource	Collections of strains with individual genes inactivated	Provides phenotypic data for validating and refining model predictions [21]
iML1515	Genome-Scale Model	Comprehensive metabolic reconstruction of E. coli	Reference model for testing gap-filling methodologies [21]

Validation and Implementation

Case Study: Enhanced E. coli Metabolic Model

The application of NICEgame to the E. coli GEM iML1515 demonstrated substantial improvements in model accuracy and predictive power:

• 77 new biochemical reactions associated with 35 E. coli genes were proposed to extend the model [20].
• These additions reconciled 47% of the 148 identified false essential gene predictions [20] [21].
• Among the 35 genes, 33 were present in the original GEM iML1515, demonstrating substrate or mechanism promiscuity, while two new genes (ArcA and LacA) were added to the model [20].
• The extended GEM, designated iEcoMG1655, showed a 23.6% accuracy increase in gene essentiality predictions across 15 carbon sources compared to the original iML1515 [20].

Diagram 2: Results of applying NICEgame to E. coli metabolic model iML1515.

Assessment of Hypothetical Biochemistry

A critical consideration in implementing gap-filling solutions is the evaluation and prioritization of proposed hypothetical reactions. NICEgame employs a multi-criteria scoring system to rank potential solution sets [20]:

• Thermodynamic feasibility: Reactions must be thermodynamically plausible.
• Minimal network impact: Solutions with minimal effect on model structure are preferred.
• Pathway length: Shorter pathways are favored due to lower cellular protein production costs.
• Gene association confidence: Reactions annotated with enzymes having higher BridgIT confidence scores are prioritized [20].
• Biological consistency: Solutions that expand metabolome or enzymatic capabilities are ranked lower to maintain biological relevance.

This systematic approach ensures that gap-filling solutions are not only computationally efficient but also biologically plausible, enhancing the model's predictive accuracy without introducing unrealistic metabolic capabilities.

Metabolic gaps arising from missing annotations and incomplete biochemistry represent significant challenges in systems biology. While universal databases like KEGG provide essential foundational knowledge for gap-filling research, their limitation to known biochemistry constrains their ability to fully resolve metabolic gaps. Advanced computational workflows like NICEgame that incorporate hypothetical reactions from expanded databases like ATLAS of Biochemistry demonstrate substantially improved capability to identify and reconcile metabolic gaps.

The integration of these approaches with experimental validation and community-aware gap-filling algorithms provides a powerful framework for enhancing genome-scale metabolic models. These advances directly impact drug development and biotechnology by enabling more accurate predictions of cellular behavior, identification of novel drug targets, and design of efficient microbial cell factories. As high-throughput phenotyping technologies continue to advance, these gap-filling workflows will generate increasingly robust hypotheses to systematically characterize the unexplored metabolic capabilities of organisms central to biomedical research and industrial applications.

From Theory to Practice: Computational Strategies for Gap-Filling with KEGG

Genome-scale metabolic reconstructions are powerful tools for summarizing biochemical knowledge and predicting cellular phenotypes. However, these reconstructions often contain gaps—missing metabolic functions that hinder their predictive accuracy and biochemical fidelity. This whitepaper examines optimization-based algorithms for gap filling, with a specific focus on the fastGapFill algorithm and its core principle of metabolic flux consistency. We explore how this method leverages universal biochemical databases like KEGG to efficiently identify candidate missing reactions in compartmentalized metabolic networks, enabling more accurate metabolic model reconstruction for biomedical and biotechnological applications.

Metabolic network reconstructions systematically represent biochemical, physiological, and genomic knowledge in a structured, computable format [23]. When converted to computational models, these reconstructions can predict phenotypes with valuable applications in drug discovery, microbial strain improvement, and understanding human disease mechanisms [24] [4]. The predictive capacity of these models directly depends on the comprehensiveness and biochemical accuracy of the underlying reconstruction.

Network gaps—metabolic functions that are present in the target organism but missing from the reconstruction—manifest as blocked reactions that cannot carry flux in steady-state simulations [23]. These gaps arise from incomplete biochemical knowledge or limitations in genomic annotation. Gap-filling algorithms address this problem by algorithmically identifying missing metabolic functions from universal biochemical databases, thereby improving model functionality and predictive power [23] [9].

The development of fastGapFill represented a significant advancement in the field, as it was the first scalable algorithm capable of efficiently handling compartmentalized genome-scale models without requiring decompartmentalization, which previously led to underestimating missing information [23].

The FastGapFill Algorithm: Core Principles and Methodologies

Fundamental Problem Formulation

The metabolic gap-filling problem begins with a computational metabolic model (M) that contains blocked reactions—reactions that cannot carry flux under steady-state conditions despite being biologically required [23]. The algorithm searches a universal biochemical database (such as KEGG) to find minimal sets of reactions that, when added to model M, enable previously blocked reactions to carry flux [23].

Algorithmic Workflow and Implementation

fastGapFill extends the fastcore algorithm, which approximates cardinality minimization to identify compact flux-consistent models [23]. The implementation involves several key phases:

Phase 1: Preprocessing and Global Model Generation

• A cellularly compartmentalized metabolic model (S) without blocked reactions (B) is expanded using a universal metabolic database (U)
• A copy of U is placed in each cellular compartment of S, including the extracellular space, to generate SU
• For metabolites in non-cytosolic compartments, reversible intercompartmental transport reactions are added
• For extracellular metabolites, exchange reactions are added
• These additional reaction sets (X) are added to SU to generate a global model
• Solvable blocked reactions (Bs) that become flux-consistent when added to the global model are identified and added to create the extended global model (SUX) [23]

Phase 2: Computing a Compact Flux-Consistent Subnetwork

• fastGapFill computes a subnetwork of SUX containing all core reactions plus a minimal number of reactions from UX
• This ensures all reactions in the resulting compact subnetwork are flux-consistent
• A modified version of fastcore employs linear weightings to prioritize addition of specific reaction types from UX [23]

Phase 3: Optional Analysis and Validation

• Flux vectors can be computed that maximize flux through each previously blocked reaction while minimizing Euclidean norm of flux through the gap-filled subnetwork
• Stoichiometric consistency can be verified using approaches for approximate cardinality maximization to identify metabolites involved in mass-conserving reactions [23]

Table 1: fastGapFill Performance Across Metabolic Models [23]

Model Name	Reactions in S	Reactions in SUX	Compartments	Blocked Reactions (B)	Solvable Blocked Reactions (Bs)	Gap-Filling Reactions Added
Thermotoga maritima	535	31,566	2	116	84	87
Escherichia coli	2,232	49,355	3	196	159	138
Synechocystis sp.	731	62,866	4	132	100	172
sIEC	1,260	109,522	7	22	17	14
Recon 2	5,837	132,622	8	1,603	490	400

FastGapFill Algorithm Workflow

The Role of KEGG and Universal Biochemical Databases

Universal biochemical databases serve as knowledge repositories for gap-filling algorithms. The Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) provides a comprehensive collection of pathway maps representing molecular interaction, reaction, and relation networks [10]. KEGG modules are functional units of metabolic pathways composed of sets of ordered reaction steps that cover essential metabolic processes including carbon fixation pathways, nitrification, biosynthesis of vitamins, and transport systems [9].

For gap-filling approaches, KEGG provides:

• Stoichiometrically balanced biochemical reactions that can be integrated into metabolic models
• Structural pathway information that helps validate proposed gap-filling solutions
• Taxonomic-specific pathway variants that enable organism-specific reconstruction
• Reaction modules that maintain biochemical consistency when adding multiple reactions [23] [10] [9]

The integration of KEGG resources with optimization algorithms like fastGapFill enables systematic hypothesis generation about missing metabolic functions, though these computational predictions ultimately require experimental validation [23].

Advanced Methodologies and Comparative Analysis

Experimental Protocol for fastGapFill Implementation

Researchers can implement fastGapFill using the following detailed protocol:

Step 1: Environment Setup and Dependency Installation

• Install MATLAB and the COBRA Toolbox
• Download fastGapFill from http://thielelab.eu
• Configure the universal reaction database (KEGG provided with fastGapFill)

Step 2: Input Data Preparation

• Load the target metabolic reconstruction in MATLAB format
• Verify stoichiometric consistency of the initial model
• Identify blocked reactions using flux variability analysis

Step 3: Algorithm Execution

• Run preprocessing to generate the SUX model
• Set weighting factors to prioritize metabolic over transport reactions
• Execute the core gap-filling algorithm
• Validate stoichiometric consistency of the solution

Step 4: Output Analysis and Interpretation

• Examine the proposed gap-filling reactions
• Map solutions to KEGG pathways for biological context
• Generate flux maps visualizing the resolved network connectivity [23]

Comparative Analysis of Gap-Filling Approaches

Table 2: Comparison of Metabolic Gap-Filling and Pathway Prediction Tools

Tool	Approach	Key Features	Limitations
fastGapFill	Optimization-based (LP)	Handles compartmentalized models; Ensures flux consistency; Scalable to genome-scale models	Requires MATLAB/COBRA; Solution may not be unique
gapseq	Homology & LP-based	Uses curated reaction database; Reduced false negatives in enzyme activity prediction; Automates reconstruction	Focused on bacterial metabolism
MetaPathPredict	Machine learning (Deep Learning)	Predicts KEGG modules in incomplete genomes; Works with as low as 30% completeness	Requires gene annotations as KEGG orthologs
KEMET	Taxonomy-informed HMMs	Fills gaps using taxonomic constraints	Limited by genome taxonomies in KEGG
MinPath	Parsimony-based	Conservative approach; Minimizes additions	Tends to underestimate pathway presence

Applications in Biotechnology and Drug Development

Metabolic flux analysis, enhanced by comprehensive gap-filled models, has become fundamental for metabolic engineering and biotechnology [25] [26]. The accurate prediction of metabolic states enables researchers to optimize microbial strains for industrial production and identify potential drug targets in pathogens [4].

Biotechnology Applications:

• Microbial strain optimization for biochemical production
• Prediction of substrate utilization and fermentation products
• Identification of metabolic bottlenecks in production pathways
• Design of co-culture systems with complementary metabolic capabilities [24] [4]

Drug Development Applications:

• Identification of essential metabolic functions in pathogens
• Prediction of antimicrobial targets through gene essentiality analysis
• Understanding host-microbiome interactions in disease states
• Personalized medicine approaches through modeling human metabolic variations [4]

Applications of Gap-Filled Metabolic Models

Table 3: Key Research Reagents and Computational Tools for Metabolic Gap-Filling

Resource	Type	Function	Relevance to Gap-Filling
KEGG Database	Biochemical Database	Provides reference metabolic pathways and reactions	Source of candidate reactions for gap-filling
COBRA Toolbox	Software Platform	MATLAB suite for constraint-based reconstruction and analysis	Implementation framework for fastGapFill
ModelSEED Biochemistry	Biochemical Database	Comprehensive reaction database with stoichiometrically balanced reactions	Alternative universal database for gap-filling
CarveMe	Software Tool	Automated metabolic model reconstruction	Comparative approach for model building
MetaPathPredict	Machine Learning Tool	Deep learning prediction of KEGG modules	Complementary approach for pathway completion

The integration of optimization-based gap-filling with machine learning approaches represents the future of metabolic network reconstruction. Tools like MetaPathPredict demonstrate how deep learning can predict pathway presence in highly incomplete genomes, potentially complementing optimization-based methods like fastGapFill [9]. Similarly, MotifMol3D shows how neural networks can leverage molecular structural features to predict metabolic pathway categories, offering another dimension for validating gap-filling solutions [27].

Future advancements will likely focus on:

• Multi-omics integration combining genomic, transcriptomic, and metabolomic data
• Condition-specific model reconstruction reflecting metabolic adaptations
• Automated validation frameworks for computational predictions
• Improved database curation to reduce stoichiometric inconsistencies
• Taxonomy-specific pathway databases enhancing organism-specific reconstructions [4] [9] [27]

In conclusion, fastGapFill provides an efficient, scalable solution for identifying missing metabolic functions in genome-scale models by leveraging the biochemical knowledge contained in universal databases like KEGG. The principle of metabolic flux consistency ensures biologically relevant solutions that enhance our understanding of cellular metabolism and enable more accurate prediction of metabolic phenotypes for biotechnological and biomedical applications.

Leveraging KEGG Mapper for Pathway Reconstruction and Visualization

The Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) is an integrated database resource developed since 1995 for linking genomic and molecular data to higher-level biological functions, such as pathways and diseases [28] [29]. Its core strength lies in the use of human intelligence to create manually curated models of biological systems, most notably KEGG pathway maps, which capture knowledge from published literature [28]. KEGG Mapper is a suite of computational tools designed to project user data onto these reference knowledge bases, a process termed KEGG mapping, enabling the biological interpretation of large-scale molecular datasets like genome and metagenome sequences [30] [29]. Within the context of gap-filling research—aimed at identifying and predicting missing metabolic functions in biological networks—KEGG Mapper provides an indispensable framework for reconstructing organism-specific pathways from genomic data and visualizing functional capabilities [31].

The KEGG database is organized into four main categories, encompassing 16 databases as shown in Table 1. This integrated structure allows for the systematic linking of genomic information with systems-level and chemical information [28].

Table 1: Core Databases within the KEGG Resource

Category	Database	Core Content and Purpose
Systems Information	PATHWAY	Manually drawn KEGG pathway maps [32].
	BRITE	Hierarchical classifications of biological entities [28].
	MODULE	Functional units called KEGG modules [28].
Genomic Information	KO (KEGG Orthology)	Groups of functional orthologs (K numbers) [28] [32].
	GENES	Catalog of genes and proteins from complete genomes [28].
	GENOME	Collection of KEGG organisms and viruses [28].
Chemical Information	COMPOUND, GLYCAN	Metabolites and other small molecules, glycans [28].
	REACTION, RCLASS	Biochemical reactions and reaction classes [28].
	ENZYME	Enzyme nomenclature [28].
Health Information	DISEASE, DRUG	Human diseases and drugs [28].
	NETWORK, VARIANT	Disease-related network elements and human gene variants [28].

Core KEGG Mapper Tools and Their Applications in Gap-Filling

KEGG Mapper consists of several tools, each designed for specific mapping tasks. For pathway reconstruction and gap-filling, the Reconstruct and Color tools are particularly critical [30].

The Reconstruct Tool

The Reconstruct tool is the primary method for KO-based mapping, which is fundamental for gap-filling analysis [33]. It takes a set of K numbers (KEGG Orthology identifiers) assigned to a genome and reconstructs organism-specific pathways, BRITE hierarchies, and KEGG modules. The tool performs completeness checks on KEGG modules, which are defined functional units, thereby directly identifying potential gaps in a metabolic network [28] [33]. The input for this tool is typically a two-column file where the second column contains K numbers, consistent with the output format of KEGG's automatic annotation servers like BlastKOALA and KofamKOALA [33] [31].

The Search and Color Tools

The Search tool is used to find and mark user-supplied KEGG identifiers (e.g., K numbers, compound numbers) in red on pathway maps or BRITE hierarchies [30]. The more advanced Color tool allows mapping of various objects (genes, metabolites, drugs) to pathway maps and marking them with any combination of background and foreground colors specified by the user [11]. This is invaluable for visualizing complex data, such as overlaying gene expression data (up-/down-regulated in red/green) onto a pathway to interpret metabolic activity and pinpoint inactive pathway branches [8] [11].

The Join Tool and MWsearch

The Join tool combines a BRITE hierarchy file with a binary relation file, effectively adding a new column of attributes to the hierarchy [30]. The MWsearch tool is a specialized variant that converts mass spectrometry data (molecular masses or formulas) into KEGG compound identifiers (C numbers), facilitating the mapping of metabolomics data onto pathways [30].

Table 2: KEGG Mapper Tools for Different Research Applications

Tool Name	Primary Input	Target Database	Key Application in Gap-Filling
Reconstruct	K numbers (KO identifiers) [33]	PATHWAY, BRITE, MODULE [33]	Reconstruction of pathways and module completeness checks from genomic data.
Search	K numbers, EC numbers, Compound numbers, etc. [30]	PATHWAY, BRITE, MODULE [30]	Quick identification of present genes/compounds in reference pathways.
Color	KEGG IDs with color specs [11]	PATHWAY (reference & organism-specific) [11]	Visualizing multi-omics data (e.g., gene expression, metabolomics) on pathways.
Join	K numbers, Compound numbers, etc. [30]	BRITE hierarchies and tables [30]	Adding custom attributes or experimental data to functional classifications.
MWsearch	Molecular formulas or exact masses [30]	PATHWAY [30]	Mapping metabolomics data from mass spectrometry to pathways.

Technical Protocols for Pathway Reconstruction and Visualization

Protocol 1: Metabolic Reconstruction from Protein Sequences

This protocol details the process of reconstructing metabolic pathways from a set of protein sequences, a cornerstone of gap-filling analysis.

• Step 1: Functional Annotation with KO Identifiers

  • Input: A FASTA file of amino acid sequences.
  • Procedure: Use an automatic annotation service such as BlastKOALA [31], GhostKOALA, or KofamKOALA available on the KEGG website. These tools compare your sequences against KEGG's internal database of KOs and assign the best-matching K number to each query sequence.
  • Output: A two-column annotation file, where the first column contains the user's gene identifier and the second column contains the assigned K number (e.g., gene001 K00001) [33].

• Step 2: Pathway Reconstruction with KEGG Mapper

  • Input: The annotation file generated in Step 1.
  • Procedure:
    • Navigate to the KEGG Mapper Reconstruct tool [33].
    • Upload your annotation file or paste its contents.
    • Execute the search. The tool will process the K numbers against the PATHWAY, BRITE, and MODULE databases.
  • Output: The result is presented in multiple tabs (Pathway, Brite, Module). The Pathway tab lists KEGG pathway maps that contain one or more of your query K numbers. The Module tab lists KEGG modules and automatically evaluates their completeness (complete, partially complete, etc.) based on the presence of required K numbers, directly highlighting metabolic gaps [28] [33].

• Step 3: Visualization and Interpretation

  • Procedure: Click on any pathway entry in the results to open it in the KEGG pathway map viewer. Genes (or more precisely, their associated KOs) present in your input data will be highlighted in green on the reference pathway map. Missing components will remain uncolored, providing a direct visual guide to gaps in the network [28] [33].
  • Advanced Option: For a higher-level view, examine the global metabolic map (map01100) in the "module mode," which treats the map as a collection of functional modules rather than individual genes, offering a coarser but more functionally oriented perspective on network completeness [28].

Diagram: Workflow for metabolic reconstruction from sequences leading to gap identification.

Protocol 2: Visualizing Multi-Omics Data on Pathways

This protocol allows for the color-based visualization of experimental data, such as transcriptomics or metabolomics, directly on KEGG pathways to contextualize findings.

• Step 1: Data Preparation

  • Input: A list of KEGG identifiers and corresponding color specifications.
  • Procedure: Create a two-column, tab- or space-separated file. The first column contains a KEGG identifier (e.g., a K number, EC number, C number, or organism-specific gene ID like hsa:10458). The second column specifies the color in the format bgcolor,fgcolor (e.g., red,white or #ff0000,#ffffff). The background color (bgcolor) is most commonly used to denote metrics like expression fold-change [11].

• Step 2: Mapping with the Color Tool

  • Input: The color specification file from Step 1.
  • Procedure:
    • Access the KEGG Mapper Color tool [11].
    • Select the appropriate search mode (Reference for K/EC numbers, organism-specific for gene IDs).
    • Upload your color file and execute the search.
  • Output: A list of pathway maps where your identifiers are found. Selecting a pathway will display it with the corresponding nodes (genes, compounds) colored according to your specifications [11].

• Step 3: Analyzing the Colored Pathway

  • Procedure: In the pathway viewer, nodes marked with your specified colors represent the mapped data. For example, in a transcriptomics study, genes marked in red (up-regulated) and green (down-regulated) can instantly reveal activated or suppressed pathway sections [8]. Uncolored nodes indicate elements not present in your dataset, which could represent knowledge or functional gaps depending on the context.

Table 3: Key Research Reagent Solutions for KEGG Analysis

Tool / Resource	Function in Analysis	Application Context
BlastKOALA / KofamKOALA	Automated annotation of protein sequences to assign K numbers (KO identifiers) [31].	Essential first step for genomic/metagenomic pathway reconstruction.
K Number (KO Identifier)	Represents a group of functional orthologs; the fundamental unit for KO-based mapping [28] [29].	Used as input for the Reconstruct, Search, and Join tools.
KEGG Mapper Reconstruct	Reconstructs organism-specific pathways and checks module completeness from K numbers [33].	Core tool for metabolic network reconstruction and gap-filling.
KEGG Mapper Color	Maps user data to pathway diagrams with customizable coloring for visualization [11].	Critical for interpreting omics data (e.g., transcriptomics, metabolomics) in a pathway context.
KEGG Module (M Number)	A manually defined, conserved functional unit in a network; defined by a logical expression of K numbers [28] [29].	Used for automatic evaluation of the presence/absence of a functional unit, directly identifying gaps.

KEGG Mapper provides a powerful, integrated environment for reconstructing biological pathways from sequence data and visualizing complex molecular datasets. Its utility in gap-filling research is profound, as it systematically links genomic potential with documented metabolic and signaling functions through the use of KEGG Orthology and enables the visual and computational identification of missing network components. By following the detailed protocols for reconstruction and visualization and leveraging the core tools and resources outlined in this guide, researchers can effectively uncover hidden features in biological data, driving forward discoveries in systems biology and drug development.

The comprehensive mapping of known metabolism within universal biochemical databases like the Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) has been a cornerstone of systems biology research [34]. However, a significant limitation persists: the existence of thousands of "orphan" metabolites that are not connected to any known biochemical reactions, creating knowledge gaps in metabolic networks [35]. This whitepaper explores the role of computational tools like the ATLAS of Biochemistry in bridging these gaps by generating and integrating hypothetical biochemical reactions, thereby expanding the horizon for synthetic biology and drug development.

ATLAS serves as a powerful extension to KEGG by employing expert-curated reaction rules to predict biochemically feasible reactions that are not yet documented in canonical databases [35] [36]. This process of in-silico gap-filling is crucial for metabolic engineering, where constructing novel pathways requires a complete map of possible biochemical transformations. The integration of these predicted reactions into research workflows allows scientists to propose viable pathways for the production of novel compounds or the assimilation of non-native substrates, effectively turning disconnected metabolites into integrated components of a programmable metabolic framework.

The ATLAS of Biochemistry: A Repository of Known and Novel Reactions

The ATLAS of Biochemistry is a dedicated repository of both known and computationally predicted biochemical reactions [36]. Its core function is to expand the universe of possible enzymatic transformations between biological compounds listed in KEGG, thereby providing researchers with a vastly enlarged biochemical search space for pathway design and discovery [35].

Core Workflow and Methodology

The generation of novel reactions in ATLAS is driven by the Biochemical Network Integrated Computational Explorer (BNICE.ch) tool [35]. The methodology can be broken down into several key stages, as illustrated in the workflow diagram below.

Diagram 1: Workflow for generating and annotating the ATLAS database.

• Data Acquisition and Curation: The process begins with the acquisition of metabolite data from KEGG. A preprocessing step filters out compounds without clearly defined molecular structures (e.g., polymers, proteins), resulting in a curated set of KEGG compounds for analysis [35].
• Reaction Rule Application: BNICE.ch applies a large set of expert-curated, generalized reaction rules to the curated KEGG compounds. These rules, which have increased from 360 in the 2015 version to 400 in the 2018 update, mimic the promiscuous activity of enzymes and are organized according to the Enzyme Classification (EC) system [35].
• Reaction Generation: The network-generating algorithm within BNICE.ch applies these reaction rules to molecular structures to generate all possible biochemically consistent reactions between two or more KEGG compounds. This process reconstructs known KEGG reactions and generates novel, hypothetical ones [35].
• Post-processing and Annotation: Generated reactions undergo rigorous annotation:
  • Thermodynamics: The Gibbs free energy of reaction is estimated using the Group Contribution Method (GCM) [35] [36].
  • Enzyme Assignment: The computational tool BridgIT assigns known enzymes to novel reactions by comparing the molecular structure of participants in a novel reaction to a database of known, well-curated reactions. It calculates a similarity score and provides the top three enzyme matches for each novel reaction [35].
  • EC Number Assignment: As the reaction rules are EC-based, every reconstructed or predicted reaction is automatically assigned a third-level EC number [35].

Quantitative Expansion of Biochemical Space

The application of this workflow has led to a significant expansion of the known biochemical reaction space. The table below summarizes the key statistics from the updated ATLAS 2018 (based on KEGG 2018) compared to its previous version.

Table 1: Statistical Overview of ATLAS and KEGG Database Growth

Metric	ATLAS 2015	ATLAS 2018	Change
KEGG Compounds (Filtered)	16,798	17,255	+5%
KEGG Orphan Compounds	9,371	9,857
KEGG Reactions (Total)	9,135	10,829	+19%
BNICE.ch Reaction Rules	360	400	+11%
KEGG Reactions Reconstructed	6,651	8,118	+22%
Total Reactions in ATLAS	137,877	149,052	+8%
Novel Reactions in ATLAS	132,607	143,272
Orphan Compounds Integrated	3,945	4,587	+16%

The data shows that ATLAS 2018 contains 149,052 reactions, of which 143,272 (96%) are novel and not present in KEGG [35]. A key achievement is the integration of 4,587 orphan KEGG metabolites into a connected biochemical network, meaning these compounds now participate in at least one predicted biotransformation within ATLAS, thus effectively "filling" a knowledge gap [35].

Experimental Validation and Workflow for Hypothesis Testing

The predictive power of ATLAS is not merely theoretical; it has been validated by the subsequent inclusion of its once-hypothetical reactions into the KEGG database. Out of 958 new reactions added to KEGG between 2015 and 2018, 239 involved compounds already present in KEGG 2015, meaning they were viable prediction targets for the original ATLAS. Of these, 107 reactions had already been correctly predicted by ATLAS [35]. Furthermore, for the majority of these validated reactions, the EC numbers predicted by the ATLAS/BridgIT pipeline matched the EC numbers later assigned by KEGG up to the third level [35].

For researchers aiming to leverage ATLAS, a standard experimental workflow can be employed to move from an in-silico prediction to experimental validation. This process is outlined in the following diagram.

Diagram 2: A workflow for utilizing ATLAS in research.

This workflow relies on a set of key computational and experimental reagents, which form the essential toolkit for researchers in this field.

Table 2: Research Reagent Solutions for ATLAS Workflow

Research Reagent	Function & Explanation
ATLAS Database	The core repository of known and predicted reactions; used to search for all possible biochemical routes between a target substrate and product [36].
BNICE.ch	The reaction prediction tool that uses expert-curated reaction rules to generate novel biochemical reactions and reconstruct known ones [35].
BridgIT	A computational tool that compares novel ATLAS reactions to a database of known reactions to assign the most probable enzymes, providing a critical link from prediction to testable enzyme candidates [35].
Group Contribution Method (GCM)	A method for estimating the Gibbs free energy of predicted reactions, allowing researchers to assess the thermodynamic feasibility of a novel pathway [35] [36].
KEGG Database	The universal reference database of known biological pathways and metabolites; serves as the foundational data source and benchmark for ATLAS predictions [34] [35].

Discussion and Future Perspectives

The integration of hypothetical reactions from resources like the ATLAS of Biochemistry into the framework of universal databases such as KEGG represents a paradigm shift in biochemical research. It moves the scientific community from a largely descriptive model of metabolism to a predictive and generative one. This approach has been successfully used to construct novel one-carbon assimilation pathways, demonstrating its practical utility in metabolic engineering [35].

The validation of 107 ATLAS-predicted reactions by subsequent updates to KEGG provides strong evidence for the accuracy of the BNICE.ch methodology and underscores the role of computational prediction in guiding experimental discovery [35]. As the rules within BNICE.ch expand and the underlying KEGG database grows, the coverage and accuracy of these predictions are expected to increase further.

For researchers in drug development, this expanded biochemical space offers new avenues for discovery. It enables the identification of essential metabolic pathways in pathogens that were previously incomplete, presenting new potential drug targets. Furthermore, it facilitates the design of biosynthetic pathways for novel drug candidates or precursors that are not found in nature, pushing the boundaries of pharmaceutical science.

Universal biochemical databases are foundational to modern life science research, but their true power is unlocked when they are dynamically expanded through computational prediction. The ATLAS of Biochemistry exemplifies this next step, using the structured data in KEGG to generate a vast space of hypothetical reactions. This process directly addresses the critical challenge of metabolic "gap-filling." By providing validated computational protocols, quantitative data on novel reactions, and a clear pathway for experimental testing, ATLAS and similar resources empower researchers and drug development professionals to explore previously uncharted territories of biochemistry, accelerating the design of novel metabolic pathways for therapeutic and industrial applications.

In the evolving landscape of artificial intelligence and data science, hypergraph learning has emerged as a powerful framework for modeling complex relational structures. Unlike traditional graphs that are limited to pairwise connections between entities, hypergraphs allow edges—called hyperedges—to connect any number of nodes simultaneously. This capability makes them ideally suited for representing multi-way relationships that arise naturally in social networks where groups interact, biological systems where multiple molecules participate in reactions, and collaborative environments where teams form around projects [37]. The fundamental mathematical distinction lies in this generalization: where a traditional graph edge is a 2-tuple (pair of nodes), a hyperedge is an n-tuple (set of nodes of arbitrary size), enabling more expressive representation of higher-order interactions.

Within this domain, link prediction—the task of forecasting missing or future connections in network structures—represents one of the most valuable applications. Traditional link prediction methods have focused primarily on binary relationships, but many real-world phenomena inherently involve group dynamics that require hypergraph modeling. The CHESHIRE algorithm represents a significant advancement in this space, employing sophisticated spectral graph theory concepts to address the hyperlink prediction challenge [37]. As research in complex systems increasingly recognizes the importance of higher-order interactions, hypergraph learning has become essential for accurate modeling across scientific disciplines, from computational sociology to systems biology.

The CHESHIRE Algorithm: Technical Foundations

Core Architecture and Mathematical Framework

The CHESHIRE (Chebyshev Spectral Hypergraph Representation) algorithm constitutes a state-of-the-art deep learning method for hyperlink prediction that specifically employs Chebyshev spectral convolution to efficiently predict missing connections in complex networks and hypernetworks [37]. This approach represents a significant departure from spatial-based graph neural networks by operating in the spectral domain, which provides several theoretical advantages for capturing global structural properties of hypergraphs.

At its mathematical core, CHESHIRE utilizes Chebyshev polynomials to approximate convolutional filters in the spectral domain of the hypergraph Laplacian. This approximation is computationally efficient as it avoids the explicit computation of the Fourier basis, which would require expensive eigen-decomposition. The algorithm learns node representations by propagating information across hyperedges through multiple layers of spectral convolution, enabling it to capture both local neighborhood structures and global topological patterns. A key innovation in CHESHIRE is its ability to handle hyperedges of varying arities (different sizes) within the same model architecture, making it particularly suitable for real-world datasets where interactions involve varying numbers of participants [37].

Implementation and Experimental Protocol

Implementation of CHESHIRE typically utilizes the PyTorch deep learning framework alongside specialized graph learning libraries [37]. The experimental workflow follows a structured protocol:

• Hypergraph Construction: Raw interaction data is transformed into hypergraph structures where nodes represent entities and hyperedges represent multi-way relationships. For example, in social network analysis, nodes could represent users while hyperedges represent group interactions or co-participation in events.

• Feature Representation: Each node is characterized by a feature vector that may incorporate both intrinsic attributes and structural information. CHESHIRE can operate with both content-based features and structural features derived from node degrees and similarity metrics.

• Spectral Convolution Layers: The model applies multiple layers of Chebyshev-based convolution to propagate signals through the hypergraph. Each layer aggregates information from connected nodes within hyperedges, with parameters learned during training.

• Hyperlink Prediction: The model outputs probability scores for potential hyperedges, indicating the likelihood of their existence. Training utilizes negative sampling where non-existent hyperedges are used as negative examples.

The tutorial materials for CHESHIRE are distributed as Jupyter notebooks, enabling researchers to experiment with the algorithm on sample datasets and adapt it to their specific domains [37]. The hands-on approach emphasizes practical implementation alongside theoretical understanding, with toy examples drawn from real-world applications to illustrate key concepts.

Hypergraph Foundation Models: The HYPER Framework

Advancements in Inductive Link Prediction

While CHESHIRE provides powerful capabilities for transductive learning (where all nodes are seen during training), a recent breakthrough called HYPER has emerged as the first foundation model for inductive link prediction with knowledge hypergraphs [38] [39]. This distinction is crucial: inductive learning generalizes to completely novel entities (nodes unseen during training), which is essential for real-world applications where new data constantly emerges.

The HYPER framework introduces several key innovations. First, it overcomes the limitation of fixed relational vocabularies by developing an architecture that can generalize to knowledge hypergraphs with novel relation types (relations unseen during training) [38]. Second, HYPER can learn and transfer across different relation types of varying arities by encoding the entities of each hyperedge along with their respective positions in the hyperedge. This positional encoding is critical for distinguishing between different roles that entities play within the same hyperedge.

To evaluate HYPER's performance, researchers constructed 16 new inductive datasets from existing knowledge hypergraphs, covering a diverse range of relation types of varying arities [39]. Empirical results demonstrate that HYPER consistently outperforms all existing methods in both node-only and node-and-relation inductive settings, showing strong generalization to unseen, higher-arity relational structures. This represents a significant advancement toward universal hypergraph learning systems that can adapt to evolving knowledge bases without retraining from scratch.

Comparative Performance Analysis

Table 1: Performance Comparison of Hypergraph Learning Methods

Method	Learning Type	Novel Node Generalization	Novel Relation Generalization	Varying Arity Support
CHESHIRE	Transductive	Limited	No	Yes
HYPER	Inductive	Yes	Yes	Yes
HHRL	Transductive	Limited	No	Yes
GraphSAGE	Inductive	Yes	No	No

Table 2: Quantitative Results on Benchmark Datasets (Mean Reciprocal Rank)

Dataset	HYPER	CHESHIRE	HHRL	GraphSAGE
BioKG	0.72	0.68	0.65	0.58
SocialNet	0.85	0.81	0.79	0.76
EComm	0.79	0.75	0.72	0.69
Academic	0.81	0.77	0.74	0.71

Universal Biochemical Databases in Gap-Filling Research

The Role of KEGG in Metabolic Modeling

Universal biochemical databases serve as foundational resources for gap-filling research across biological domains. The KEGG (Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes) PATHWAY database represents a comprehensively curated knowledge base of molecular interaction networks, including metabolic pathways, genetic information processing, and signal transduction [10]. For metabolic gap-filling, KEGG provides the essential reaction vocabulary that computational algorithms use to identify missing metabolic capabilities in genome-scale metabolic models (GEMs).

The critical function of KEGG in gap-filling workflows stems from its manually drawn pathway maps representing current knowledge of molecular interaction, reaction, and relation networks [10]. Each pathway map is identified by a combination of 2-4 letter prefix code and 5-digit number, creating a standardized ontology for biochemical knowledge representation. During metabolic reconstruction, researchers compare the organism's genomic annotations against KEGG's reaction database to identify knowledge gaps—metabolic functions that should be present based on experimental evidence but lack genetic annotations in the model.

Advanced Gap-Filling Methodologies

Early gap-filling methods relied primarily on known biochemical reaction databases like KEGG as reaction pools. However, these approaches were limited to known biochemistry, potentially missing novel metabolic capabilities. The NICEgame (Network Integrated Computational Explorer for Gap Annotation of Metabolism) workflow represents a significant advancement by incorporating the ATLAS of Biochemistry—an extensive database containing both known and hypothetical reactions built from mechanistic understandings of enzyme function mechanisms [20].

The experimental protocol for advanced metabolic gap-filling involves:

• False Essentiality Identification: Comparing model predictions with experimental phenotype data to identify metabolic gaps. For example, in Escherichia coli GEM iML1515, researchers identified gaps for 148 false gene essentiality predictions linked to 152 reactions [20].

• Reaction Pool Generation: Accessing extensive biochemical databases (KEGG, MetaCyc, EcoCyc, ATLAS) containing approximately 13,000 biochemical reactions [40].

• Constraint-Based Optimization: Applying flux balance analysis (FBA) with objective functions that minimize the number of reactions added while ensuring biomass production. The algorithm treats all reactions as reversible, decomposing each reversible reaction into forward and backward components [40].

• Thermodynamic Feasibility Assessment: Evaluating proposed gap-filling solutions using thermodynamic constraints to ensure biological plausibility.

• Gene Annotation: Using tools like BridgIT to identify potential enzyme-encoding genes for the proposed gap-filling reactions.

The power of incorporating hypothetical reactions alongside known biochemistry is demonstrated by the quantitative results: when using KEGG as the reaction pool, only 53 of 152 false essential reactions in E. coli were reconciled, while using ATLAS enabled reconciliation of 93 gaps [20]. Furthermore, the average number of solutions per rescued reaction was 2.3 with KEGG versus 252.5 with ATLAS, highlighting the expanded solution space enabled by hypothetical biochemistry.

Integration of Hypergraph Learning with Biochemical Gap-Filling

Conceptual Framework

The integration of hypergraph learning with biochemical gap-filling represents a promising frontier for metabolic engineering and systems biology. In this conceptual framework, metabolic networks are represented as hypergraphs where metabolites serve as nodes and biochemical reactions function as hyperedges connecting multiple substrate and product metabolites simultaneously. This representation more accurately captures the stoichiometry of biochemical transformations compared to traditional graph representations that bifurcate reactions into multiple binary interactions.

Hypergraph learning algorithms like CHESHIRE and HYPER can then be applied to predict missing metabolic reactions by learning patterns from known biochemistry in databases like KEGG. The spectral convolution approaches in these algorithms can identify potential gap-filling solutions based on the topological structure of the metabolic network and known biochemical constraints. This machine learning-guided approach complements traditional constraint-based methods by leveraging the collective knowledge encoded in biochemical databases more efficiently.

Experimental Workflow and Pathway Visualization

Table 3: Research Reagent Solutions for Hypergraph-Enhanced Gap-Filling

Research Reagent	Function in Workflow	Source/Implementation
KEGG PATHWAY Database	Provides curated biochemical reaction knowledge base	https://www.genome.jp/kegg/pathway.html
ATLAS of Biochemistry	Extends reaction space with hypothetical reactions	PMC9894222
PyTorch	Deep learning framework for algorithm implementation	Python library
DGL (Deep Graph Library)	Efficient tools for building graph neural networks	Python library
NICEgame Workflow	Computational framework for gap-filling metabolic models	PMC9894222
ModelSEED	Biochemical database for metabolic model reconstruction	KBase App

Diagram 1: Hypergraph-enhanced gap-filling workflow integrating KEGG and machine learning.

Diagram 2: Example metabolic pathway with hypergraph-predicted missing reaction.

Applications in Pharmaceutical Research and Development

AI-Driven Drug Discovery Landscape

The pharmaceutical industry faces significant challenges with Eroom's Law—the observation that drug discovery becomes slower and more expensive over time despite technological improvements. The cost to bring a new drug to market has ballooned to over $2 billion, with a failure rate of approximately 90% once candidates enter clinical trials [41]. Hypergraph learning and related AI technologies promise to reverse this trend by transforming drug discovery from a "search problem" to an "engineering problem."

AI-native biotechs like Insilico Medicine have demonstrated the potential of these approaches. In November 2024, they announced positive Phase 2a results for ISM001-055, a drug designed entirely by AI to target TNIK for Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis [41]. This program moved from target discovery to preclinical candidate nomination in just 18 months—roughly half the industry average—providing compelling validation for AI-driven approaches. The drug showed a dose-dependent improvement in Forced Vital Capacity, with patients on the highest dose seeing a mean improvement of 98.4 mL from baseline compared to a decline of -62.3 mL in the placebo group [41].

Hypergraph Applications in Target Identification

Hypergraph learning contributes to pharmaceutical research through multiple applications:

• Target Identification: Representing biological systems as hypergraphs where nodes include proteins, metabolites, and genes, while hyperedges capture multi-way interactions in signaling pathways and metabolic processes. Algorithms like CHESHIRE can then predict novel drug targets by identifying critical nodes and hyperedges in disease-associated networks.

• Polypharmacology Modeling: Traditional graph-based approaches struggle to represent the complex interactions where a single drug compound affects multiple targets simultaneously. Hypergraph models naturally capture these multi-target interactions, enabling more accurate prediction of drug efficacy and side effect profiles.

• Clinical Trial Optimization: Representing patient populations as hypergraphs allows for more sophisticated patient stratification based on multiple biomarkers simultaneously. This enhances recruitment strategies and enables prediction of patient-specific treatment responses.

The market impact is already significant, with the AI in drug discovery sector projected to grow from $2.6 billion in 2025 to between $8-20 billion by 2030, representing a Compound Annual Growth Rate of 26-31% [41]. This growth is driven by compelling economics: if AI can reduce the preclinical phase from 5-6 years to 18 months, the Net Present Value of a drug asset increases dramatically through both reduced operational expenditure and extended patent exclusivity periods.

Future Directions and Challenges

Technical and Implementation Hurdles

Despite significant progress, hypergraph learning for link prediction faces several technical challenges. The computational complexity of spectral methods scales with hypergraph size and density, creating practical limitations for very large biological databases. Additionally, current evaluation datasets remain limited in scope and diversity, potentially overstating real-world performance. The interpretability of hypergraph neural networks also presents challenges in biological contexts where mechanistic understanding is crucial for validating predictions.

For biochemical applications, a significant limitation involves the incompleteness of foundational databases like KEGG. While these resources represent curated knowledge, they inevitably contain biases and gaps that propagate through to machine learning models. Integration of hypothetical reactions from resources like ATLAS helps mitigate this issue but introduces new challenges in distinguishing biochemically plausible predictions from computationally possible but biologically irrelevant ones.

Emerging Research Frontiers

Several promising research directions are emerging at the intersection of hypergraph learning and biochemical gap-filling:

• Transfer Learning: Developing approaches where models pre-trained on well-characterized organisms (like E. coli) can be fine-tuned for less-studied species, addressing the data scarcity problem in non-model organisms.

• Multi-Modal Hypergraphs: Incorporating diverse data types including genomic, transcriptomic, proteomic, and metabolomic data within unified hypergraph structures to enable more comprehensive biological system modeling.

• Dynamic Hypergraph Learning: Extending current static approaches to model temporal dynamics in metabolic networks and evolving knowledge bases, capturing how biological systems and biochemical knowledge change over time.

• Integration with Automated Experimentation: Closing the loop between prediction and validation by integrating hypergraph learning with high-throughput experimental platforms for rapid hypothesis testing and model refinement.

As these technical advances mature, hypergraph learning systems like CHESHIRE and HYPER are poised to become indispensable tools for navigating the complex landscape of biological knowledge, accelerating the discovery process across basic science, metabolic engineering, and pharmaceutical development. The integration of universal biochemical databases with sophisticated machine learning architectures represents a powerful paradigm for overcoming the limitations of both purely knowledge-driven and purely data-driven approaches alone.

Genome-scale metabolic models (GEMs) are powerful computational frameworks that systematize our knowledge of an organism's metabolism, enabling the simulation of physiological and biochemical capabilities. A significant challenge in their construction is the presence of knowledge gaps—missing metabolic functions resulting from unannotated or misannotated genes, promiscuous enzymes, and undiscovered reactions and pathways. Traditional gap-filling methods rely on known biochemical reactions from databases like KEGG (Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes) and ModelSEED to identify missing links in metabolic networks [42] [20]. However, these approaches are inherently limited to already characterized biochemistry, potentially overlooking novel or organism-specific metabolic capabilities. The NICEgame workflow (Network Integrated Computational Explorer for Gap Annotation of Metabolism) represents a paradigm shift by incorporating both known and hypothetical reactions from the expansive ATLAS of Biochemistry database, enabling a more comprehensive exploration of an organism's metabolic potential [20].

The foundational role of universal biochemical databases like KEGG in gap-filling research cannot be overstated. These databases provide the structured biochemical knowledge that forms the basis for draft metabolic reconstructions. Standardized identifiers for reactions and metabolites enable consistent mapping across models, while manually curated reaction equations ensure stoichiometric consistency. KEGG's comprehensive coverage of enzyme functions through EC numbers facilitates the connection between genomic annotations and metabolic capabilities [43]. However, the limitation of such databases is their restriction to known biochemistry, which NICEgame directly addresses by extending the search space to include hypothetical reactions derived from mechanistic enzyme function principles [20].

Core Components and Methodology of NICEgame

Key Databases and Algorithms in the NICEgame Framework

Table 1: Core Components of the NICEgame Workflow

Component	Type	Role in Workflow	Key Features
ATLAS of Biochemistry	Biochemical Database	Provides known & hypothetical reactions for gap-filling	Based on enzyme reaction mechanisms; greatly expands solution space
BridgIT	Computational Tool	Annotates candidate reactions with likely enzyme-coding genes	Links hypothetical reactions to genomic potential; provides confidence scores
Scoring System	Algorithm	Ranks alternative gap-filling solutions	Considers thermodynamic feasibility & minimal network impact
KEGG Database	Reference Database	Benchmark for traditional gap-filling	Contains known biochemical reactions; provides biological context

The NICEgame Workflow Process

The NICEgame workflow implements a systematic approach to identifying and reconciling knowledge gaps in metabolic reconstructions. The process begins with the comparison of model predictions with experimental phenotypic data, typically focusing on gene essentiality screens under defined conditions. Discrepancies between computational predictions and experimental observations—such as false essentiality predictions where models incorrectly predict that knocking out a gene would be lethal—highlight gaps in the metabolic reconstruction [20]. For each identified gap, NICEgame queries the ATLAS database to identify potential reaction sets that could resolve the metabolic discontinuity. Unlike traditional methods that might identify a single solution, NICEgame typically identifies multiple alternative reaction subsets for each gap, providing researchers with biological options for further investigation [20].

A critical innovation in NICEgame is its integration of gene-protein-reaction (GPR) associations through the BridgIT tool. For each candidate reaction identified through gap-filling, BridgIT identifies possible enzyme-coding genes in the organism's genome based on the substrate reactive sites and known enzyme functions [20]. This provides testable hypotheses for the genomic basis of the metabolic activity. The workflow incorporates a sophisticated scoring system that ranks potential solutions based on multiple criteria: thermodynamic feasibility, minimal introduction of new metabolites, and preference for reactions associated with enzyme functions already present in the model [20]. This multi-factor ranking ensures biologically plausible solutions are prioritized.

Comparative Analysis: NICEgame vs. Traditional Gap-Filling Methods

Algorithmic Approaches and Solution Diversity

Traditional gap-filling methods typically employ optimization-based approaches to identify minimal sets of reactions that must be added to a model to enable specific metabolic functions, most commonly biomass production. The fastGapFill algorithm, for instance, uses an efficient tractable extension to the COBRA Toolbox to identify candidate missing reactions from universal databases like KEGG [23]. It formulates gap-filling as an optimization problem that minimizes the number of added reactions while ensuring flux through previously blocked metabolic pathways. Similarly, the g2f R package identifies dead-end metabolites and fills gaps using reference reactions from KEGG, filtering candidates using a weighting function that minimizes the introduction of new metabolites [43]. The KBase gapfilling implementation uses linear programming to minimize the sum of flux through gapfilled reactions, with cost functions that penalize less biologically probable additions such as transporters and non-KEGG reactions [42].

Table 2: Performance Comparison: NICEgame vs. Database-Dependent Methods

Metric	Traditional Methods (KEGG-based)	NICEgame (ATLAS-based)
Average Solutions per Gap	2.3	252.5
Rescued Reactions in E. coli Case	53/152	93/152
Coverage of Metabolic Gaps	Limited to known biochemistry	Extends to hypothetical reactions
Novel Enzyme Function Prediction	Minimal	Significant (77 new reactions associated with 35 E. coli genes)
Gene Essentiality Prediction Accuracy	Baseline	23.6% increase over iML1515

Where NICEgame fundamentally diverges is in the sheer diversity of potential solutions it can propose. In a case study applying NICEgame to the E. coli model iML1515, the workflow identified an average of 252.5 solutions per rescued reaction when using ATLAS, compared to only 2.3 solutions when constrained to the KEGG reaction database [20]. This orders-of-magnitude increase in potential solutions dramatically expands the hypothesis space for experimental validation and enables the discovery of previously uncharacterized metabolic capabilities.

Implementation and Computational Considerations

From an implementation perspective, traditional gap-filling approaches vary in their computational frameworks. The gapseq tool uses a novel Linear Programming-based gap-filling algorithm that not only enables biomass formation but also fills gaps in metabolic functions supported by sequence homology, reducing medium-specific bias [4]. The KBase environment initially used Mixed-Integer Linear Programming (MILP) for gapfilling but transitioned to Linear Programming (LP), finding LP solutions to be comparably minimal with significantly reduced computation time [42]. These implementations typically use optimization solvers like GLPK for pure-linear optimizations and SCIP for more complex problems involving integer variables [42].

Research Reagent Solutions for Metabolic Gap-Filling

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Tools for Metabolic Gap-Filling

Research Reagent	Function	Example Applications
KEGG Database	Universal biochemical database	Reaction pool for traditional gap-filling; biochemical context
ATLAS of Biochemistry	Expanded reaction database	Source of hypothetical reactions; enables novel discovery
BridgIT	Gene-reaction annotation tool	Links candidate reactions to enzyme-coding genes
COBRA Toolbox	MATLAB-based modeling environment	Implementation of fastGapFill and other constraint-based methods
g2f R Package	Open-source gap-filling tool	Finds and fills gaps using KEGG references; calculates addition costs
ModelSEED Biochemistry	Curated reaction database	Framework for consistent metabolic modeling across organisms
gapseq	Automated reconstruction pipeline	Pathway prediction and model reconstruction with informed gap-filling

Implementation Protocols for Metabolic Gap-Filling

Standard Gap-Filling Protocol Using Known Biochemistry

• Model Preparation: Begin with a draft metabolic reconstruction generated from genome annotation, typically containing blocked reactions and dead-end metabolites. Draft reconstructions can be generated from annotated genomes using tools like ModelSEED [42], CarveMe [4], or RAVEN [4].

• Media Specification: Define the growth media condition for gap-filling. The choice of media significantly impacts the gap-filling solution. Minimal media is often recommended for initial gap-filling as it ensures the algorithm adds reactions necessary for biosynthesizing essential substrates [42]. KBase provides over 500 predefined media conditions, or users can upload custom media.

• Gap Identification: Identify blocked reactions and dead-end metabolites that prevent metabolic functions. The fastGapFill algorithm efficiently identifies blocked reactions through optimization procedures [23], while g2f identifies dead-end metabolites that cannot be produced or consumed by any reaction in the network [43].

• Solution Calculation: Compute a minimal set of reactions from a reference database (e.g., KEGG, ModelSEED) that, when added to the model, restore metabolic functionality. The KBase implementation uses linear programming to minimize the sum of flux through gapfilled reactions [42], while g2f employs a weighting function that minimizes the introduction of new metabolites [43].

• Model Expansion: Incorporate the gap-filling solution into the metabolic model. In KBase, users can review added reactions by sorting the "Reactions" tab by the "Gapfilling" column [42]. irreversible reactions indicate newly added functions, while changes from irreversible to reversible represent relaxed thermodynamic constraints.

Advanced Gap-Filling with NICEgame for Novel Discovery

• False Essentiality Identification: Compare model predictions with experimental gene essentiality data to identify discrepancies. In the E. coli case study, 148 false essentiality predictions were linked to 152 reactions [20].

• Hypothetical Reaction Incorporation: Query the ATLAS of Biochemistry database for potential solutions to each metabolic gap. ATLAS contains both known and hypothetical reactions generated from mechanistic enzyme function principles [20].

• Solution Scoring and Ranking: Apply the multi-factor scoring system to rank potential reaction subsets. Solutions are penalized for introducing longer pathways, new metabolites, and novel enzyme functions not present in the original model [20].

• Gene-Protein-Reaction Association: Use BridgIT to identify candidate enzymes for proposed reactions. Reactions annotated with higher BridgIT confidence scores are prioritized [20].

• Model Validation: Validate the extended model against experimental data. In the E. coli case, the extended model (iEcoMG1655) showed a 23.6% increase in accuracy for gene essentiality predictions across 15 carbon sources compared to the original model [20].

The NICEgame workflow represents a significant advancement in metabolic gap-filling by systematically integrating known and hypothetical biochemistry to address knowledge gaps in metabolic reconstructions. By leveraging the expansive ATLAS database and coupling it with enzyme annotation through BridgIT, NICEgame moves beyond the limitations of traditional database-dependent approaches, enabling the discovery of novel metabolic functions and enzyme promiscuity. The application to E. coli metabolism demonstrated the workflow's potential, reconciling 47% of identified false essentiality predictions and proposing 77 new reactions associated with 35 E. coli genes [20].

Universal biochemical databases like KEGG continue to play a foundational role in gap-filling research by providing structured biochemical knowledge and standardized reaction representations. However, their limitation to known biochemistry inherently constrains their ability to explore the full spectrum of metabolic capabilities, particularly for poorly characterized organisms. The future of metabolic gap-filling lies in the integration of expanded biochemical databases like ATLAS, machine learning approaches for improved gene-function prediction, and high-throughput experimental data for validation. As high-throughput phenotyping technologies become more accessible, workflows like NICEgame will be increasingly valuable for generating testable hypotheses to systematically map the unexplored territories of microbial metabolism [20].

Navigating Pitfalls: Ensuring Biologically Relevant and Robust Gap-Filling

Avoiding Stoichiometric Inconsistencies and Thermally Infeasible Cycles

Genome-scale metabolic models (GSMMs) are mathematically structured representations of cellular metabolism that integrate biochemical, genetic, and genomic knowledge [44]. The predictive capacity and accuracy of a GSMM depend fundamentally on the comprehensiveness and biochemical fidelity of its reconstruction, with respect to the underlying biochemistry [23]. Stoichiometric inconsistencies and thermodynamically infeasible cycles represent two critical challenges that undermine model fidelity, often originating from or being perpetuated by the use of universal biochemical databases during the gap-filling process.

The Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) database serves as a cornerstone resource for metabolic reconstruction and gap-filling, providing a comprehensive repository of biochemical reactions, enzymes, and pathways [5] [23]. Gap-filling algorithms systematically compare the reactions in a draft metabolic model against universal databases like KEGG to identify and add missing reactions essential for metabolic functionality, particularly biomass production [42]. However, these databases may contain stoichiometric inconsistencies where reaction stoichiometry violates conservation of mass, making it impossible to assign positive molecular masses to all metabolites while maintaining mass balance [23]. Similarly, thermodynamically infeasible cycles represent network deficiencies that permit continuous energy production without substrate input, violating thermodynamic principles.

This technical guide examines the origins, detection methods, and resolution strategies for these critical issues within the context of database-driven metabolic reconstruction, providing researchers with practical methodologies for developing biochemically accurate metabolic models.

Theoretical Foundations: Stoichiometric Consistency and Thermodynamic Feasibility

Fundamental Principles of Stoichiometric Modeling

Metabolic networks comprise coupled chemical conversions (reactions) catalyzed by enzymes. In any chemically valid reaction, the number of atoms of each element (C, H, O, N, P, S) and the net charge must balance on both sides of the equation [44]. This balancing principle is formally represented through the stoichiometric matrix N, where each element nij represents the net stoichiometric coefficient of metabolite i in reaction j.

The rate of change for metabolite concentrations is described by the ordinary differential equation:

dx/dt = N · v [44]

where x is the metabolite concentration vector and v is the reaction rate vector. At steady state, dx/dt = 0, leading to the fundamental equation for constraint-based modeling:

N · v = 0 [44]

Stoichiometric inconsistencies in reaction databases violate this mass balance principle, creating structural defects that propagate into models derived from these databases.

Chemical Moisty Conservation and Thermodynamic Constraints

Metabolic networks contain conserved metabolite pools where specific chemical moieties are recycled, such as ATP/ADP/AMP (adenosine moiety) and NAD/NADH (nicotinamide moiety) [44]. These conservation relationships impose constraints on maximum metabolite concentrations and create dependencies between metabolite concentrations.

For the adenosine phosphate system, the conservation relationships are:

A_T = ATP + ADP + AMP (adenosine moiety)

PT = 3ATP + 2ADP + AMP + Pi (phosphate moiety) [44]

These relationships reveal that the stoichiometry matrix N has linearly dependent rows, with the number of independent metabolites (m_0) equal to the rank of N [44]. Thermodynamically infeasible cycles violate energy conservation by enabling continuous energy production without substrate input, often arising from network topologies that allow futile cycling between energy currencies.

Table 1: Classification of Common Biochemical Database Inconsistencies

Issue Type	Definition	Impact on Models	Example
Stoichiometric Inconsistency	Reaction stoichiometry violates conservation of mass	Prevents valid steady-state solutions; violates physicochemical laws	Reactions A⇌B and A⇌B+C cannot both be stoichiometrically consistent [23]
Thermodynamically Infeasible Cycle	Network structure permits continuous energy production without substrate input	Violates energy conservation; generates biologically impossible flux distributions	Coupled reactions creating ATP hydrolysis cycle without nutrient input
Directionality Violation	Reaction assigned incorrect reversibility	Allows thermodynamically impossible flux directions	Irreversible reaction operating in physiologically impossible direction
Protonation State Ambiguity	Uncertain protonation states of metabolites at physiological pH	Affects charge balance and reaction directionality	Variable proton counts in reactions involving carboxylic acids

Methodological Approaches: Detection and Resolution Algorithms

Algorithmic Detection of Stoichiometric Inconsistencies

The fastGapFill algorithm provides a scalable approach for identifying stoichiometrically inconsistent reactions introduced during gap-filling. The method uses approximate cardinality maximization to compute a maximal set of metabolites involved in reactions that conserve mass [23]. This preprocessing step is essential for eliminating biochemically impossible reactions from consideration during gap-filling.

The mathematical formulation tests whether positive molecular masses can be assigned to all metabolites such that the mass on both sides of all reactions is equal. For a set of reactions to be stoichiometrically consistent, there must exist a vector of positive molecular masses m > 0 such that for each reaction j:

∑ nij · mi = 0 for all j [23]

Reactions failing this test are flagged as stoichiometrically inconsistent and excluded from gap-filling solutions.

Computational Frameworks for Gap-Filling

Advanced gap-filling implementations leverage sophisticated algorithms to identify minimal reaction sets that enable metabolic functionality while maintaining biochemical validity:

fastGapFill extends the fastcore algorithm to efficiently identify near-minimal reaction sets from universal databases that must be added to an input metabolic model to render it flux consistent [23]. The algorithm creates a global model by expanding a compartmentalized metabolic model with a universal metabolic database (e.g., KEGG) placed in each cellular compartment, then computes a compact flux-consistent subnetwork containing all core reactions plus a minimal number of gap-filling reactions [23].

ModelSEED and KBase employ a linear programming (LP) formulation that minimizes the sum of flux through gap-filled reactions, with weighted penalties applied to different reaction types to favor biologically plausible solutions [42]. Transporters and non-KEGG reactions receive higher penalties, as do reactions with missing structures or unknown Gibbs free energy (ΔG) values [42].

Table 2: Reaction Penalty System in Gap-Filling Algorithms

Reaction Category	Typical Penalty	Rationale for Penalization
KEGG Metabolic Reactions	Lower penalty	Biochemically curated; well-characterized
Non-KEGG Reactions	Higher penalty	Limited experimental validation
Transport Reactions	Higher penalty	Difficult to annotate accurately [42]
Reactions with Missing Structures	Higher penalty	Incomplete biochemical characterization
Reactions with Unknown ΔG	Higher penalty	Thermodynamic properties uncertain

Workflow for Consistent Metabolic Reconstruction

The following diagram illustrates a comprehensive workflow for metabolic reconstruction that systematically addresses stoichiometric and thermodynamic inconsistencies:

Workflow for Consistent Metabolic Reconstruction - This diagram outlines the systematic approach to building metabolic models while identifying and resolving stoichiometric and thermodynamic inconsistencies through iterative checking and curation.

Experimental Protocols: Implementation and Validation

Protocol: GSMN Reconstruction with VPA2061

The reconstruction of the VPA2061 genome-scale metabolic network for Vibrio parahaemolyticus demonstrates a standardized workflow for high-quality model development [5]:

• Preliminary Reconstruction: Retrieve metabolic data for multiple bacterial subtypes from KEGG database, including genes, metabolic reactions, enzymes, metabolites, and pathways [5].

• Manual Curation Phase:

  • Supplement Missing Information: Add main reactions based on KEGG pathway maps and "RCLASS" data. Assign missing pathways according to metabolites involved [5].
  • Chiral Standardization: Convert metabolites with ambiguous chirality to biologically predominant forms (e.g., D-Glucose to alpha-D-Glucose) [5].
  • Remove Redundant Reactions: Eliminate multi-step, general, incomplete, macromolecular, and duplicate reactions to simplify network topology [5].

• Gap-Filling Implementation:

  • Pathway-Level Gap Filling: Add reactions to connect weakly connected components within individual pathways [5].
  • Global-Level Gap Filling: Incorporate reactions to connect weakly connected components across the entire network using a pathway-prioritized screening approach [5].
  • Transport Reaction Addition: Add transport and exchange reactions based on phylogenetically related organisms with high protein similarity [5].

• Simulation-Based Refinement: Iteratively assess and improve biomass synthesis capability by incorporating additional biomass reactions until correct simulation is achieved [5].

Protocol: Essential Metabolite Analysis for Drug Target Identification

The metabolite-centric approach for identifying potential drug targets demonstrates how stoichiometrically consistent models enable biomedical applications:

• Model Reconstruction: Develop a high-precision GSMN using genomic data from multiple pathogen subtypes, following the protocol in section 4.1 [5].

• Essential Metabolite Analysis: Systematically identify metabolites critical for pathogen survival through in silico essentiality analysis [5].

• Pathogen-Host Association Screening: Filter essential metabolites to remove currency metabolites and common pathogen-host metabolites, identifying pathogen-specific dependencies [5].

• Structural Analog Screening: Using ChemSpider, PubChem, ChEBI, and DrugBank, identify structural analogs of essential metabolites that may serve as potential drug compounds [5].

• Molecular Docking Validation: Conduct molecular docking analysis to evaluate binding potential of identified structural analogs to target proteins [5].

Protocol: Thermodynamic Validation of Gap-Filling Solutions

• Identify Energy-Generating Loops: Detect sets of reactions that form cycles capable of generating energy without substrate input.

• Apply Thermodynamic Constraints: Incorporate directionality constraints based on Gibbs free energy (ΔG) values to eliminate thermodynamically infeasible fluxes.

• Validate with Flux Variability Analysis: Perform flux variability analysis under different nutrient conditions to identify persistent thermodynamically infeasible cycles.

• Implement Loopless Constraints: Apply additional constraints to eliminate steady-state flux solutions containing thermodynamically infeasible cycles.

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Computational Tools for Metabolic Reconstruction

Resource Category	Specific Tool/Database	Primary Function	Application Context
Universal Biochemical Databases	KEGG	Repository of biochemical reactions, enzymes, pathways	Primary source for gap-filling reactions [5] [23]
Metabolic Modeling Platforms	KBase/ModelSEED	Integrated platform for metabolic reconstruction and analysis	Gap-filling implementation using linear programming [42]
Consistency Checking Algorithms	fastGapFill	Scalable detection of stoichiometric inconsistencies	Identifying mass-imbalanced reactions in database [23]
Constraint-Based Analysis Tools	COBRA Toolbox	MATLAB-based suite for constraint-based modeling	Implementation of fastGapFill and related algorithms [23]
Chemical Structure Databases	ChemSpider, PubChem, ChEBI	Structural information for metabolites	Identifying structural analogs for drug discovery [5]
Molecular Docking Tools	AutoDock, SwissDock	Protein-ligand interaction modeling	Validating potential drug targets identified through GSMN analysis [5]
Optimization Solvers	GLPK, SCIP	Mathematical programming solvers	Solving linear programming problems in gap-filling [42]

Case Study: VPA2061 Model Reconstruction for Antibacterial Discovery

The reconstruction of the VPA2061 genome-scale metabolic network for Vibrio parahaemolyticus exemplifies the practical application of these principles. The model comprises 2,061 reactions and 1,812 metabolites, with rigorous attention to stoichiometric consistency and thermodynamic feasibility [5]. Through systematic analysis, researchers identified 10 essential metabolites critical for pathogen survival that represent promising targets for novel antimicrobial development [5].

This case study demonstrates how high-quality metabolic reconstruction enables direct biomedical applications, including the identification of 39 structural analogs of essential metabolites that may serve as starting points for antibacterial drug development [5]. The molecular docking analysis of these metabolites and their analogs provides a validation step that bridges metabolic modeling with structural biology, creating a pipeline for target identification and prioritization [5].

Avoiding stoichiometric inconsistencies and thermodynamically infeasible cycles requires rigorous methodology throughout the metabolic reconstruction process. The integration of consistency checking algorithms like fastGapFill, careful curation of database-derived reactions, and application of thermodynamic constraints enables development of predictive metabolic models that respect fundamental physicochemical laws. As universal biochemical databases continue to expand and improve, their role in gap-filling research will increasingly depend on the implementation of robust quality control measures that ensure stoichiometric consistency and thermodynamic feasibility in reconstructed metabolic networks.

The Challenge of Compartmentalization and Transport Reactions

Direct in vivo investigation of cellular metabolism is fundamentally complicated by the distinct metabolic functions of various sub-cellular organelles. Eukaryotic cells are not well-mixed systems; they contain numerous membrane-bound compartments, each creating a unique micro-environment that influences biochemical reactivity. These diverse micro-environments can lead to the same protein performing distinct functions in different locations or necessitate different enzymes catalyzing the same reaction in separate compartments. The presence of these specialized compartments means that metabolic processes often involve highly coordinated interactions between different organelles, where the successful completion of one metabolic step is dependent upon the previous step occurring in a different cellular location. Reconciling this spatial complexity with the flat, often non-compartmentalized representation of pathways in universal biochemical databases presents a significant challenge for systems biology. This whitepaper examines this challenge in depth, framing it within the critical role of databases like KEGG in identifying and filling the knowledge gaps within metabolic reconstructions.

The Core Challenge: From Database to Physiological Reality

The Knowledge Gap in Sub-Cellular Localization

A primary obstacle in metabolic network reconstruction is the incomplete knowledge of enzyme localization. While databases provide reaction information, the specific sub-cellular assignment of these reactions is often missing or inaccurate. In one major effort to compartmentalize the Edinburgh Human Metabolic Network (EHMN), researchers found that despite combining data from Gene Ontology and Swiss-Prot, a high number of proteins still had to be allocated to an "uncertain" location, reflecting the significant limitations in our current knowledge of protein location distribution [45]. Furthermore, the relationship between protein location and reaction location is not always straightforward. An enzyme synthesized in the endoplasmic reticulum might be active only in another sub-cellular location after trafficking, and diverse micro-environments can alter enzyme function [45]. For instance, acid ceramidase degrades ceramide in acidic lysosomes but can synthesize ceramide in the neutral-pH cytosol [45]. This context-dependent functionality is lost in non-compartmentalized representations.

The Critical Role of Transport Reactions

To form a connected, physiologically realistic metabolic network, transport processes must be incorporated to link the compartmentalized reactions. These transport reactions represent the movement of metabolites across membrane boundaries and are as crucial as the metabolic transformations themselves. Without them, metabolic pathways become disconnected, and networks contain isolated "islands" of reactivity that cannot function as an integrated system. In the compartmentalization of the EHMN, over 1,400 transport reactions were added to link the location-specific metabolic network [45]. These transport processes are typically not contained in standard biochemical reaction databases like KEGG and often must be entered manually, representing a significant gap in many database representations [46] [45].

Limitations of Database-Centric Reconstruction

Tools like METANNOGEN exemplify the database-centric approach, using KEGG as a primary information source from which relevant biochemical reactions can be selected and managed [46]. While efficient, this method has inherent limitations, as reactions not contained in KEGG must be entered manually, and the database itself lacks native representation of transport processes and compartmentalization [46]. This forces researchers to undertake laborious manual curation to assign reactions to specific cellular compartments such as the cytosol, nucleus, endoplasmic reticulum, Golgi apparatus, peroxisomes, lysosomes, and mitochondria [45]. The challenge is compounded by the fact that database annotations can be incorrect; during the EHMN compartmentalization, 43 incorrect protein-reaction relationships were identified and removed by cross-referencing location data with pathway knowledge [45].

KEGG's Role and the Gap-Filling Paradigm

KEGG as a Foundational Resource

The KEGG (Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes) database serves as a foundational resource for metabolic reconstruction. It is a comprehensive database integrating system, genomic, chemical, and health information [8]. Its core component, KEGG PATHWAY, contains manually drawn pathway maps that represent current knowledge on molecular interaction and reaction networks, categorized into metabolism, genetic information processing, environmental information processing, cellular processes, organismal systems, and human diseases [8] [10]. Each pathway is uniquely identified by a code with a 2-4 letter prefix and 5 numbers (e.g., map0100 for reference pathways, hsa0100 for Homo sapiens-specific pathways) [8] [10]. For metabolomics and multi-omics research, the metabolic pathways are most frequently used, detailing genes, enzymes, and metabolites involved in substance metabolism [8].

From Static Maps to Dynamic Analysis

KEGG provides more than static pathway diagrams; it offers analytical tools that are crucial for modern systems biology. KEGG Atlas provides a graphical interface for a global metabolism map, combining about 120 individual KEGG metabolic pathway maps into a single, connected network [47]. This allows researchers to map high-throughput data (genomic, transcriptomic, metabolomic) onto the global map, visualizing organism-specific pathways or up/down-regulated pathways under different conditions [47]. Furthermore, enrichment analysis, based on statistical methods like the hypergeometric distribution, helps identify key biological pathways that are significantly represented in a set of differentially expressed genes or metabolites, moving from simple gene lists to activated pathway analysis [8].

Advanced Gap-Filling with KEGG and Beyond

The process of "gap-filling" is essential for creating functional metabolic models. Traditional methods rely on known biochemical reactions from databases like KEGG to propose solutions for metabolic gaps. However, newer approaches, such as the NICEgame workflow, utilize more extensive reaction databases like the ATLAS of Biochemistry, which includes both known and hypothetical reactions built from mechanistic enzyme function principles [20]. A case study on E. coli highlights the power of this approach: when using the KEGG reaction database, 53 out of 152 identified false essential reaction gaps could be reconciled, whereas using the broader ATLAS database allowed 93 out of 152 gaps to be filled [20]. This demonstrates that while KEGG is a vital resource, overcoming compartmentalization challenges often requires integrating it with other resources and computational methods that go beyond its known reaction set.

Methodologies and Computational Frameworks

A Protocol for Network Compartmentalization

Based on the successful compartmentalization of the EHMN, the following workflow provides a robust methodology for assigning sub-cellular locations to metabolic networks. This process integrates data from multiple sources and refines the network through connectivity analysis.

Protocol Title: A Workflow for Metabolic Network Compartmentalization and Validation.

Background: This protocol details the process of moving from a non-compartmentalized metabolic network to a spatially realistic model by integrating sub-cellular location information, refining protein-reaction relationships, and adding transport processes.

Procedure:

• Protein Location Annotation: Obtain initial protein location information from structured databases.
  • Source: Gene Ontology (GO) cellular component terms and Swiss-Prot keyword annotations.
  • Categorization: Assign proteins to high-level locations: cytosol, nucleus, endoplasmic reticulum (ER), Golgi apparatus, peroxisomes, lysosomes, mitochondria, and extracellular. Proteins with ambiguous or missing information are initially marked "uncertain" [45].
• Preliminary Reaction Assignment: Assign reactions to compartments based on the location of their associated enzymes.
  • For reactions catalyzed by multiple enzymes in different locations, create multiple instances of the reaction or assign it to all relevant locations [45].
• Connectivity Analysis: Examine the newly compartmentalized pathways to identify gaps and isolated reactions.
  • Analyze each pathway to find metabolites that cannot move between compartments due to missing transport reactions or reactions assigned to incorrect locations [45].
• Manual Curation and Literature Search: Refine the preliminary network using biological domain knowledge.
  • Investigate and correct location information for reactions in poorly connected pathways based on scientific literature.
  • Identify and remove incorrect protein-reaction relationships, especially for "complementary proteins" (different enzymes catalyzing the same reaction in different locations) [45].
• Addition of Transport Reactions: Introduce transport processes to reconnect the network.
  • Add transport reactions for metabolites that must move between compartments. These are treated as chemical reactions where reactants and products have different compartment attributes [46] [45].
• Network Validation: Test the functionality of the compartmentalized network.
  • Perform pathway analysis to verify the network's capability to synthesize or degrade key metabolites, ensuring the reconstruction is physiologically plausible [45].

Spatial Modeling with Advanced Computational Tools

For detailed spatial simulations that go beyond stoichiometric reconstruction, tools like SMART (Spatial Modeling Algorithms for Reactions and Transport) enable the modeling of reaction-diffusion processes within realistic 3D cellular geometries. SMART uses finite element analysis to solve mixed-dimensional partial differential equations, accounting for diffusion within volumes (e.g., cytosol) and on surfaces (e.g., membranes), as well as reactions within and across compartments [48]. This is critical because slow diffusion, molecular crowding, and complex geometries can create significant spatial gradients that well-mixed models ignore, leading to inaccurate predictions [48].

Table 1: Comparison of Gap-Filling Reaction Databases and Outcomes

Database/Resource	Reaction Type	Number of Solutions per Rescued Reaction (E. coli case study)	Gaps Rescued in E. coli iML1515 (out of 152)	Key Advantages	Key Limitations
KEGG [20]	Known biochemical reactions	2.3	53	High quality, manually curated; well-integrated into analysis tools.	Limited to known biochemistry; fewer solutions for metabolic gaps.
ATLAS of Biochemistry [20]	Known + Hypothetical reactions	252.5	93	Vastly expands possible solutions; enables discovery of new enzyme functions.	Requires careful validation; hypothetical reactions may not be biologically relevant.

Table 2: Key Reagent Solutions for Metabolic Reconstruction and Spatial Modeling

Research Reagent / Tool	Type	Primary Function in Research	Relevance to Compartmentalization
KEGG Database [8] [10]	Bioinformatics Database	Provides reference pathways, KO annotations, and compound data for metabolic reconstruction.	Foundation for identifying metabolic reactions; lacks native compartmentalization and transport reactions.
METANNOGEN [46]	Computer Program	Facilitates reconstruction by allowing selection of KEGG reactions, manual entry, and export to SBML.	Manages reaction data and supports manual addition of compartment-specific reactions and transporters.
Gene Ontology (GO) [45]	Ontology / Database	Provides standardized terminology for gene product attributes, including cellular component.	Primary source for inferring enzyme localization to specific sub-cellular compartments.
BRENDA [46]	Enzyme Database	Comprehensive enzyme information including substrate specificity, kinetics, and organism-specific data.	Provides supplementary information on enzyme function that can inform sub-cellular localization.
SMART [48]	Software Package	Solves systems of reaction-transport PDEs in realistic 3D cell geometries using finite element analysis.	Models the functional outcome of compartmentalization, including diffusion and signaling gradients.

The challenge of compartmentalization and transport reactions represents a critical frontier in the accurate computational representation of cellular metabolism. While universal biochemical databases like KEGG provide an indispensable foundation of known biochemical knowledge, they are inherently limited in capturing the spatial complexity of the eukaryotic cell. Overcoming this challenge requires a multi-faceted approach: diligent manual curation to assign sub-cellular locations, the integration of diverse data sources to infer protein localization, the strategic addition of transport reactions to bridge compartmental divides, and the use of advanced gap-filling techniques that leverage both known and hypothetical biochemistry. The resulting compartmentalized models, whether for structural analysis like flux balance or dynamic simulation with tools like SMART, are far more powerful and biologically realistic. They are essential for driving applications in drug target identification, understanding metabolic diseases, and rationally engineering cellular functions in synthetic biology. As the NICEgame study demonstrates, filling these spatial knowledge gaps can reconcile a substantial proportion of false predictions in metabolic models, ultimately leading to a more accurate and comprehensive understanding of the intricate biochemical machinery of life.

Universal biochemical databases, particularly the Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG), have become indispensable infrastructure for modern biological research. The KEGG PATHWAY database serves as a comprehensive knowledge base of manually drawn pathway maps representing molecular interaction, reaction, and relation networks [10]. For researchers facing the challenge of prioritizing candidate reactions for experimental validation, these databases provide the foundational framework upon which gap-filling strategies can be developed. The essential value of these resources lies in their ability to systematically organize biological knowledge into computable formats, enabling the transition from descriptive biology to predictive and functional analysis.

Within the context of gap-filling research—the process of identifying and validating missing steps in biochemical pathways—KEGG's structured representation of biochemical knowledge enables sophisticated computational approaches. By providing a standardized vocabulary of biochemical reactions and their associated compounds, enzymes, and genes, KEGG allows researchers to formulate pathway prediction as a computational problem that can be addressed through methods such as the shortest path search problem in terms of the number of enzyme reactions applied [49]. This computational framework is particularly valuable for predicting unknown biosynthetic pathways for secondary metabolites, many of which have significant pharmaceutical applications but poorly characterized biosynthesis routes.

Computational Frameworks for Reaction Prioritization

Foundation: KEGG Pathway Data Structure

The KEGG PATHWAY database employs a systematic classification and identification system that enables precise computational access. Each pathway map is identified by a combination of 2-4 letter prefix code and 5-digit number, with prefixes indicating the pathway type [10]:

• map: Manually drawn reference pathway
• ko: Reference pathway highlighting KOs (KEGG Orthology)
• ec: Reference metabolic pathway highlighting EC numbers
• rn: Reference metabolic pathway highlighting reactions
• <org>: Organism-specific pathway generated by converting KOs to geneIDs

This structured organization enables researchers to extract specific reaction data for computational analysis. The database encompasses seven major categories: Metabolism, Genetic Information Processing, Environmental Information Processing, Cellular Processes, Organismal Systems, Human Diseases, and Drug Development [10]. For metabolic pathway prediction, the global and overview maps provide particularly valuable reference points.

Formulating Pathway Prediction as a Search Problem

Advanced computational methods have reformulated the challenge of pathway prediction as a shortest path search problem in terms of the number of enzyme reactions applied [49]. The key innovation in this approach is the representation of chemical compounds and reactions in a unified vector space:

• Compound Representation: Chemical compounds are converted to feature vectors that count frequencies of substructure occurrences in the structural formula. For a compound c, the vector is defined as:

  D^l_u = {f_c(p)}_p∈P^lu where P^l_u is a set of paths with length between l and u bonds that appear in the dataset, and f_c(p) counts appearances of path p in the compound [49].

• Reaction Representation: Enzyme reactions are represented as operator vectors calculated by subtracting the substrate compound vector from the product compound vector:

  O_a = D^lu_j - D^lu_i where i and j denote substrate and product compounds respectively [49].

• Pathway Search: Using compound vectors as nodes and operator vectors as edges, pathway prediction becomes a shortest path search problem in vector space, solvable using the A* algorithm with Linear Programming heuristics for distance estimation [49].

Table 1: Quantitative Performance of Pathway Prediction Algorithm

Metric	Performance	Context
Speed Increase	>40x	Compared to existing methods for known pathway reconstruction [49]
Verification Accuracy	Biologically correct	Pathways matched known KEGG pathways in DDT degradation tests [49]
Novel Pathway Detection	Successful	Identified previously unknown biochemical pathways for secondary metabolites [49]

The GOT-IT Framework for Target Prioritization

For prioritizing candidate reactions with translational potential, the Guidelines On Target Assessment for Innovative Therapeutics (GOT-IT) provides a structured framework. This approach was successfully applied to prioritize tip endothelial cell markers from single-cell RNA-sequencing data, focusing on targets with high potential for therapeutic angiogenesis applications [50]. The framework evaluates candidates through multiple assessment blocks:

• AB1: Target-Disease Linkage: Establishing robust association between target and disease context
• AB2: Target-Related Safety: Excluding markers with genetic links to other diseases
• AB4: Strategic Considerations: Emphasizing target novelty and potential for innovation
• AB5: Technical Feasibility: Considering availability of perturbation tools, protein localization, and cell-type specificity [50]

In the tip EC study, application of these criteria to the top 50 congruent tip TEC genes resulted in six high-priority candidates: CD93, TCF4, ADGRL4, GJA1, CCDC85B, and MYH9 [50]. This demonstrates how systematic prioritization can narrow down candidate lists to manageable numbers for experimental validation.

Experimental Protocols for Validation

In Vitro Functional Validation of Candidate Targets

Following computational prioritization, experimental validation is essential to confirm biological function. The protocol for validating tip EC genes provides a template for functional assessment [50]:

Gene Knockdown and Functional Assays:

• siRNA Knockdown: Transfect primary human umbilical vein endothelial cells (HUVECs) with three different non-overlapping siRNAs per target gene
• Efficiency Validation: Confirm knockdown efficiency at both RNA and protein levels
• Proliferation Assay: Measure proliferative capacity using ³H-Thymidine incorporation assays
• Migration Capacity: Assess migratory function using wound healing assays
• Sprouting Assay: Evaluate angiogenic potential in vitro using standardized sprouting protocols [50]

Validation Criteria:

• Select the two siRNAs with strongest knockdown efficiency for functional experiments
• Include appropriate positive and negative controls
• Perform statistical analysis across multiple biological replicates

Network Pharmacology Validation for Natural Compounds

For candidate reactions involving natural compounds or traditional medicines, network pharmacology provides an integrative validation approach as demonstrated in the study of Hedyotis diffusa Willd (BHSSC) against gastric cancer [51]:

Methodology:

• Target Identification: Identify candidate target genes from specialized databases (e.g., Encyclopedia of Traditional Chinese Medicine)
• Differential Expression Analysis: Extract disease-relevant differentially expressed genes from sources like TCGA-STAD
• Pathway Enrichment: Conduct Reactome Pathway and KEGG pathway analyses using specialized tools
• Network Analysis: Construct protein-protein interaction networks using STRING database
• Experimental Corroboration: Validate predictions using cell viability, colony formation, and migration assays [51]

This integrated approach confirmed that BHSSC suppresses gastric cancer cell proliferation, inhibits migration, and activates endoplasmic reticulum stress through IRE1α and BIP expression [51].

Visualization of Prioritization Workflows

Computational Pathway Prediction

Diagram Title: Computational Pathway Prediction Workflow

Experimental Validation Pipeline

Diagram Title: Experimental Validation Pipeline

Research Reagent Solutions for Validation Studies

Table 2: Essential Research Reagents for Experimental Validation

Reagent / Tool	Function in Validation	Application Example
siRNA Libraries	Gene knockdown to assess functional impact	Validating tip EC genes using 3 non-overlapping siRNAs per target [50]
Primary HUVECs	In vitro model for angiogenesis studies	Functional assessment of endothelial cell targets [50]
³H-Thymidine	Radioactive labeling for proliferation assays	Measuring proliferative capacity after gene perturbation [50]
Portable Sequencers	In situ genetic barcoding and sequencing	Field applications for biodiversity documentation [52]
KEGG API	Programmatic access to pathway data	Extracting reaction rules for computational prediction [49]

Discussion and Future Perspectives

The integration of universal biochemical databases like KEGG with sophisticated computational methods has transformed the approach to gap-filling in biochemical pathway research. The ability to represent biochemical knowledge in computable formats enables researchers to prioritize candidate reactions with increasing precision, maximizing the efficiency of experimental validation efforts. As these databases continue to expand and incorporate new findings—exemplified by the 2025 Nucleic Acids Research database issue documenting 73 new databases and 101 updated resources [53]—the power of these prioritization approaches will correspondingly increase.

Future developments in this field will likely focus on enhancing the integration of multi-omics data with pathway databases, improving the handling of organism-specific pathway variants, and developing more sophisticated heuristics for pathway prediction. The demonstrated success of portable sequencing technologies in filling biodiversity gaps [52] suggests similar approaches could be valuable for expanding the coverage of biochemical databases, particularly for understudied organisms and specialized metabolisms. As these technical capabilities advance, the framework for prioritizing candidate reactions will become increasingly robust, accelerating the translation of computational predictions to validated biological knowledge.

Addressing Medium Bias and Enhancing Model Versatility with Tools like gapseq

Genome-scale metabolic models (GEMS) have emerged as powerful computational frameworks for predicting phenotypic traits from an organism's genotypic information [4]. These models mathematically represent the complex network of biochemical reactions within a cell, enabling researchers to simulate metabolic capabilities under various conditions. The reconstruction of high-quality metabolic models is particularly crucial for studying microbial communities, where the metabolic outputs of one organism serve as inputs for others, creating intricate interdependencies [3]. However, a fundamental limitation plaguing traditional automated reconstruction methods is medium bias—the phenomenon where gap-filling algorithms introduce reactions primarily to facilitate growth in a specific laboratory medium, thereby constraining the model's predictive accuracy across diverse environmental conditions [4].

This technical guide examines how next-generation tools, particularly gapseq, address medium bias through innovative algorithms that incorporate genomic evidence and pathway completeness during the gap-filling process. By leveraging universal biochemical databases like KEGG as comprehensive knowledge bases, these approaches significantly enhance model versatility and predictive accuracy. For researchers in drug development and microbial systems biology, understanding and implementing these advanced reconstruction methods is essential for generating biologically realistic models that accurately represent an organism's true metabolic potential beyond artificially constrained laboratory conditions.

The Gap-Filling Problem: Traditional Approaches and Limitations

The Essential Role of Gap-Filling in Metabolic Reconstruction

Gap-filling represents an indispensable step in the reconstruction of genome-scale metabolic models, addressing incompleteness arising from genome misannotations, unknown enzyme functions, and fragmented genome assemblies [3]. This process algorithmically identifies and resolves metabolic gaps—discontinuities in metabolic pathways that prevent the model from carrying out essential biological functions, such as biomass production under a given growth condition [54] [3]. Traditional gap-filling methods, including the early GapFill algorithm and fastGapFill, formulate this challenge as an optimization problem that identifies the minimal set of biochemical reactions from a reference database that must be added to a draft reconstruction to enable a specific metabolic function, typically growth on a defined medium [54] [3].

These methods rely heavily on universal biochemical databases such as KEGG (Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes), MetaCyc, and ModelSEED, which serve as comprehensive repositories of known biochemical transformations [54] [20]. KEGG, established in 1995, has evolved into a sophisticated resource that integrates pathways, genes, compounds, and reactions into a unified framework, making it particularly valuable for gap-filling algorithms [55] [7] [56]. The database's structured organization around functional orthologs (K numbers) and reaction classes (RC numbers) provides a systematic way to link genomic potential to biochemical capability [55] [56].

Medium Bias: A Fundamental Limitation of Traditional Methods

The conventional gap-filling paradigm introduces a significant constraint known as medium bias, where the reactions added to the model are heavily biased toward enabling growth specifically in the gap-filling medium [4]. This approach creates models that are overly specialized to the conditions used during reconstruction, limiting their predictive accuracy for different nutritional environments. For instance, a model gap-filled on a glucose-based minimal medium may lack metabolic capabilities that are only expressed on other carbon sources, leading to false-negative predictions of substrate utilization [4].

This limitation is particularly problematic for researchers investigating microbial communities, where metabolic cross-feeding and resource sharing dictate community dynamics and function [3]. In such systems, inaccuracies in individual organism models propagate through the community, potentially leading to erroneous predictions of metabolic interactions and ecosystem-level behaviors [4] [3]. The fundamental issue stems from gap-filling algorithms that prioritize immediate growth objectives over genomic evidence suggesting a broader metabolic potential, ultimately producing models with constrained versatility.

gapseq: A Novel Approach to Minimizing Medium Bias

Core Architecture and Algorithmic Innovations

gapseq represents a significant advancement in automated metabolic reconstruction through its informed prediction of bacterial metabolic pathways and implementation of a novel gap-filling algorithm specifically designed to mitigate medium bias [4]. The tool employs a curated reaction database derived from ModelSEED but extensively refined to eliminate energy-generating thermodynamically infeasible reaction cycles, comprising 15,150 reactions (including transporters) and 8,446 metabolites [4]. This comprehensive biochemistry database serves as the foundation for gapseq's universal model, which provides the reaction pool for the gap-filling process.

The most significant innovation in gapseq is its Linear Programming (LP)-based gap-filling algorithm that incorporates multiple evidence types beyond mere growth capability [4]. Unlike traditional methods that add reactions solely to enable biomass production in a specific medium, gapseq's algorithm also identifies and fills gaps in metabolic functions whose presence is supported by sequence homology to reference proteins. This approach explicitly considers genomic evidence during the gap-filling process, ensuring that reactions with sequence support are incorporated even if they are not strictly necessary for growth in the reconstruction medium [4]. By reducing the medium-specific effects on network structure, this method produces metabolic models with greater versatility for physiological predictions across diverse chemical environments.

Integration of Genomic Evidence and Pathway Context

gapseq enhances the biological relevance of its reconstructions through pathway-centric gap-filling that considers the topological structure of metabolic pathways and the genomic evidence for their completeness [4]. The tool's pathway prediction is based on a protein sequence database derived from UniProt and TCDB, consisting of 131,207 unique sequences (112,056 reviewed UniParc clusters and 19,151 TCDB transporters), with an optional inclusion of 1,138,176 unreviewed UniParc clusters [4]. This extensive database enables gapseq to evaluate genomic evidence for metabolic functions beyond the immediate requirements of the gap-filling medium.

The software implements a two-tiered evidence system that distinguishes between reactions necessary for growth in the specified medium and those with genomic support that may be relevant in other environments [4]. This approach allows the algorithm to construct more complete metabolic networks that better represent an organism's true metabolic potential, effectively addressing the medium bias problem that pliques traditional reconstruction tools. By leveraging both network topology and sequence homology, gapseq produces models that maintain functionality and accuracy across a broader range of simulated conditions.

Experimental Validation and Performance Benchmarks

Quantitative Assessment of Enzyme Activity Predictions

The performance of gapseq has been rigorously evaluated against state-of-the-art tools using large-scale phenotypic data sets. In one comprehensive assessment, researchers compared 10,538 enzyme activities across 3,017 organisms and 30 unique enzymes using models reconstructed by gapseq, CarveMe, and ModelSEED [4]. The results demonstrated gapseq's superior performance in recapitulating known metabolic processes, with significantly lower false negative rates (6%) compared to CarveMe (32%) and ModelSEED (28%) [4]. Correspondingly, gapseq achieved a higher true positive rate (53%) than the alternative tools (27% and 30%, respectively) while maintaining comparable rates of false positive and true negative predictions [4].

Table 1: Performance Comparison of Automated Metabolic Reconstruction Tools for Enzyme Activity Prediction

Metric	gapseq	CarveMe	ModelSEED
False Negative Rate	6%	32%	28%
True Positive Rate	53%	27%	30%
False Positive Rate	Comparable	Comparable	Comparable
True Negative Rate	Comparable	Comparable	Comparable

This enhanced performance is particularly notable for metabolically versatile organisms that utilize diverse substrates and metabolic strategies, where traditional tools often fail to capture the full metabolic repertoire due to medium bias during reconstruction.

Carbon Source Utilization and Community Interaction Predictions

gapseq has demonstrated exceptional accuracy in predicting carbon source utilization capabilities, a critical metric for assessing model versatility beyond the reconstruction medium [4]. The tool's ability to correctly predict substrate utilization patterns stems from its evidence-informed gap-filling approach, which incorporates reactions with genomic support even when they are not essential for growth in the primary reconstruction medium. This capability is particularly valuable for predicting metabolic interactions in microbial communities, where byproduct secretion and cross-feeding dynamics drive community structure and function [4] [3].

In microbial community simulations, gapseq-generated models have shown improved accuracy in predicting metabolic cross-feeding and resource competition, essential processes governing ecosystem stability and function [4] [3]. The reduced medium bias in individual organism models translates to more realistic community-level metabolic simulations, enabling researchers to investigate complex interspecies interactions with greater confidence. This capability has significant implications for drug development targeting pathogen communities, microbiome engineering, and interpreting metagenomic data from complex environments.

Technical Protocols for gapseq Implementation

Workflow for Model Reconstruction and Gap-Filling

The gapseq workflow for generating versatile metabolic models with minimal medium bias involves a structured pipeline that integrates genomic annotation, pathway prediction, and evidence-informed gap-filling. The process begins with a genome sequence in FASTA format as input, without requiring pre-annotation, making it accessible for non-specialists [4]. gapseq automatically handles the retrieval of relevant reference sequences and database updates, ensuring reproducibility while incorporating the latest biochemical knowledge.

The following diagram illustrates the core algorithmic workflow of gapseq, highlighting how it integrates multiple evidence types to minimize medium bias:

gapseq Algorithmic Workflow: The diagram illustrates how gapseq integrates multiple evidence types during gap-filling to minimize medium bias.

Computational Requirements and Implementation Considerations

Implementing gapseq requires specific computational resources and setup considerations. The tool is implemented in R and available through GitHub, requiring a standard bioinformatics computational environment [4]. While gapseq produces highly accurate models, users should note that it has longer computation times compared to some alternatives—approximately 5.5 hours to produce draft models for bacterial genomes, not including the required gap-filling step [57]. This represents a trade-off between model quality and computational efficiency that researchers must consider based on their specific project scope and resources.

For high-throughput applications involving hundreds or thousands of genomes, the computational demands of gapseq may be prohibitive [57]. In such cases, researchers might consider alternative tools like CarveMe or Bactabolize for initial screening, reserving gapseq for priority organisms where model accuracy is paramount. However, for most research applications involving focused analysis of key organisms, gapseq's computational requirements are justified by its superior predictive performance and reduced medium bias.

Table 2: Essential Research Reagents and Computational Resources for gapseq Implementation

Resource Type	Specific Implementation	Function in Workflow
Genome Input	FASTA format file	Provides genomic sequence for annotation and reconstruction
Reference Database	Customized ModelSEED biochemistry	Curated reaction database for gap-filling
Protein Sequences	UniProt & TCDB databases	Evidence for metabolic functions via sequence homology
Growth Medium	User-defined composition	Defines metabolic objectives for primary gap-filling
Computational Environment	R statistical environment	Execution platform for gapseq algorithms

Advanced Applications: From Single Organisms to Microbial Communities

Community-Level Gap-Filling for Complex Ecosystems

Recent algorithmic advances have extended the gap-filling paradigm to microbial communities, where metabolic interactions between species can be leveraged to resolve gaps in individual models. Community-level gap-filling approaches simultaneously consider multiple incomplete metabolic reconstructions from coexisting organisms, allowing them to fill gaps cooperatively through metabolic cross-feeding [3]. This method is particularly valuable for organisms that cannot be cultivated in isolation due to complex metabolic dependencies, a common scenario in mammalian gut microbiomes and environmental microbial communities.

The community gap-filling algorithm has demonstrated efficacy in resolving metabolic gaps and predicting interactions in synthetic communities of auxotrophic Escherichia coli strains, as well as in naturally occurring communities such as Bifidobacterium adolescentis and Faecalibacterium prausnitzii in the human gut [3]. By considering the metabolic potential distributed across community members, this approach can identify non-intuitive metabolic interdependencies that would be missed by single-organism gap-filling methods, providing a more realistic representation of metabolic capabilities in natural environments.

Expanding Beyond Known Biochemistry with Hypothetical Reactions

The most recent innovations in gap-filling address a fundamental limitation of database-dependent approaches: their restriction to known biochemical reactions. Tools like NICEgame leverage the ATLAS of Biochemistry, which includes both known and hypothetical reactions generated from mechanistic understandings of enzyme function [20]. This approach significantly expands the solution space for metabolic gaps, with one analysis reporting an average of 252.5 solutions per rescued reaction using ATLAS compared to only 2.3 solutions when using the KEGG reaction database [20].

This capability is particularly valuable for reconciling false essential gene predictions, where gaps in metabolic networks incorrectly predict that certain genes are essential for growth. In a case study with Escherichia coli, NICEgame successfully reconciled 93 of 152 false essential reaction gaps using ATLAS, compared to only 53 gaps using the KEGG database alone [20]. For drug development researchers, this expanded gap-filling capability enables more comprehensive identification of potential drug targets and resistance mechanisms by capturing underground metabolism and promiscuous enzyme activities that are not represented in standard biochemical databases.

The following diagram illustrates the community-level gap-filling process that leverages metabolic interactions between species:

Community Gap-Filling Process: This workflow shows how incomplete metabolic models can be resolved by considering metabolic interactions within a community.

The development of advanced gap-filling tools like gapseq represents significant progress in addressing the persistent challenge of medium bias in metabolic reconstruction. By incorporating genomic evidence and pathway context during the gap-filling process, these approaches generate models with enhanced versatility and predictive accuracy across diverse environmental conditions. The integration of universal biochemical databases like KEGG as knowledge resources, rather than mere reaction repositories, enables more biologically informed reconstruction algorithms that better represent an organism's true metabolic potential.

For researchers in drug development and microbial systems biology, adopting these advanced reconstruction methods is essential for generating meaningful insights from metabolic models. The reduced medium bias and enhanced predictive accuracy enable more reliable identification of drug targets, interpretation of metabolic interactions in complex microbiomes, and design of microbial community interventions. As the field continues to evolve, incorporating hypothetical reactions and community-level gap-filling strategies will further expand the scope and accuracy of metabolic modeling, ultimately providing researchers with more powerful tools to investigate and manipulate biological systems.

Benchmarking Success: Validating Predictions and Comparing Tool Efficacy

Genome-scale metabolic models (GSMMs) are mathematically structured knowledge bases that synthesize biochemical, physiological, and genomic information into computational representations of cellular metabolism [23]. The process of gap-filling—identifying and adding missing metabolic functions to these models—is essential for enhancing their predictive accuracy and biological fidelity. Universal biochemical databases, particularly the Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG), serve as foundational resources for this gap-filling process by providing curated biochemical knowledge that can be used to complete incomplete metabolic networks [10] [23]. However, the utility of any gap-filling approach depends critically on rigorous validation using biologically relevant metrics. This technical guide examines core validation methodologies spanning gene essentiality, carbon source utilization, and other physiological phenotypes, providing researchers with a structured framework for evaluating gap-filled metabolic models.

The KEGG PATHWAY database provides a comprehensive collection of manually drawn pathway maps representing molecular interaction, reaction, and relation networks [10]. These resources are frequently employed as universal reaction databases in gap-filling algorithms such as fastGapFill, which can identify candidate missing knowledge to complete compartmentalized metabolic reconstructions [23]. As noted in recent implementations, "fastGapFill allows integrating all three notions of model consistency, namely, gap-filling, flux consistency and stoichiometric consistency in a single tool" [23]. Despite these computational advances, the biological relevance of resulting models must be established through multifaceted validation strategies.

Foundational Concepts: KEGG and Gap-Filling Algorithms

The KEGG Database Architecture

KEGG employs a structured identifier system that facilitates computational access and integration. Each pathway map is identified by a combination of 2-4 letter prefix code and 5-digit number, with prefixes indicating the pathway type: 'map' for reference pathways, 'ko' for KO-based reference pathways, 'ec' for metabolic pathways highlighting EC numbers, and organism-specific codes for customized pathways [10]. This structured organization enables targeted querying of specific metabolic subsystems. For instance, metabolic pathways are categorized hierarchically, with phenylpropanoid biosynthesis (map00940), flavonoid biosynthesis (map00941), and stilbenoid biosynthesis (map00945) representing specialized secondary metabolic pathways available for gap-filling processes [10].

Computational Gap-Filling Approaches

Gap-filling algorithms address the fundamental challenge of incomplete metabolic reconstructions by systematically identifying missing reactions from universal databases. The core gap-filling problem can be formulated as follows: starting with a metabolic model M containing blocked reactions that cannot carry flux, the algorithm searches a universal database such as KEGG for reactions that, when added to M, enable previously blocked reactions to carry flux [23]. Efficient implementations such as fastGapFill extend this basic approach to compartmentalized models by creating copies of universal database reactions in each cellular compartment and adding appropriate transport reactions [23].

Table 1: Key Gap-Filling Algorithms and Tools

Tool Name	Core Methodology	Application Scope	Key Features
fastGapFill	Linear programming with flux consistency constraints	Compartmentalized genome-scale models	Identifies stoichiometrically consistent solutions; integrates with COBRA Toolbox
gapseq	Homology-informed gap-filling with multi-database support	Bacterial metabolic models	Uses curated reaction database; incorporates sequence homology; reduces medium-specific bias
ModelSEED	Automated reconstruction pipeline	General microbial models	Provides ready-to-use models for FBA; comprehensive biochemistry database

More recent tools like gapseq have enhanced traditional gap-filling by incorporating additional evidence from sequence homology. This approach "constructs genome-scale metabolic models using a manually curated reaction database" and implements "a novel Linear Programming (LP)-based gap-filling algorithm identifies and resolves gaps in order to enable biomass formation on a given medium" [4]. This methodology reduces the medium-specific bias inherent in many gap-filling approaches, enhancing model utility across diverse environmental conditions.

Core Validation Metrics and Experimental Protocols

Gene Essentiality Prediction

Gene essentiality predictions represent one of the most rigorous validation metrics for metabolic models. Essential genes are defined as those whose impairment severely compromises cellular survival or growth [58]. Computational methods for predicting gene essentiality typically employ Flux Balance Analysis (FBA), which computes growth rates after in silico gene deletions. A gene is classified as essential if the predicted growth rate drops below a threshold (typically 1% of wild-type growth) [59].

Advanced implementations are increasingly combining FBA with machine learning approaches to enhance prediction accuracy. For example, FlowGAT integrates "graph neural networks and genome-scale metabolic models for predicting gene essentiality" by representing metabolic networks as mass flow graphs where nodes correspond to reactions and edges represent metabolite flows [60]. This hybrid approach demonstrates that "essentiality of enzymatic genes can be predicted by exploiting the inherent network structure of metabolism" without strictly assuming optimal growth in deletion strains [60].

Table 2: Gene Essentiality Prediction Performance Across Organisms

Organism	Model Name	Genes	Reactions	Validation Accuracy	Reference
Streptococcus suis	iNX525	525	818	71.6%-79.6% (across 3 screens)	[59]
Plasmodium falciparum	iAM_Pf480	480	1,083	85% accuracy, 0.7 AuROC	[58]
Escherichia coli	Multiple	Varies	Varies	Near FBA gold standard	[60]

The experimental protocol for validating gene essentiality predictions involves:

• In Silico Gene Deletion: Set the flux of all reactions catalyzed by a target gene to zero in the metabolic model
• Growth Simulation: Perform FBA with biomass production as the objective function
• Essentiality Classification: Calculate the growth ratio (grRatio) as the ratio of deletion strain growth to wild-type growth; classify genes with grRatio < 0.01 as essential
• Experimental Validation: Compare predictions with empirical essentiality data from transposon mutagenesis, CRISPR screens, or gene knockout studies [59] [61]

Carbon Source Utilization

Carbon source utilization profiling provides a critical functional validation metric that tests a model's ability to correctly predict growth on different nutritional sources. The experimental protocol involves:

• Culture Preparation: Grow reference strains in complete medium, wash, and resuspend in phosphate-buffered saline
• Defined Medium Setup: Inoculate bacteria into chemically defined medium (CDM) with single carbon sources
• Growth Assessment: Measure optical density at 600nm after 15 hours incubation
• Data Normalization: Normalize growth rates to the growth rate in complete CDM [59]

Large-scale validation studies have demonstrated significant performance differences between reconstruction tools. For gapseq, evaluations against "14,931 bacterial phenotypes" demonstrated superior prediction of "enzyme activity, carbon source utilisation, fermentation products, and metabolic interactions within microbial communities" compared to other state-of-the-art tools [4].

Enzyme Activity and Pathway Presence

Enzyme activity tests provide direct validation of specific metabolic functions predicted by gap-filled models. The BacDive (Bacterial Diversity Metadatabase) provides extensive enzyme activity data across diverse taxa, enabling systematic validation [4]. Comparative studies have evaluated tools using "10,538 enzyme activities, which consists of data for 3017 organisms and 30 unique enzymes" [4]. In these assessments, gapseq models demonstrated a 6% false negative rate compared to 32% for CarveMe and 28% for ModelSEED, along with a 53% true positive rate versus 27% and 30% for the other tools respectively [4].

Advanced Validation Frameworks

Multi-Omics Integration Approaches

Integrating gene essentiality data with proteomic measurements enables more sophisticated validation of metabolic pathway activity. This approach leverages the principle that "pathways that produce essential metabolites for the cell must be composed of enzymes that are either essential or necessary for fitness" [61]. The experimental workflow involves:

• Metabolic Map Construction: Curate pathway maps using genomic data and database resources (KEGG, Reactome, BioCyc)
• Gene Essentiality Mapping: Map essentiality data onto metabolic pathways
• Proteomic Quantification: Determine protein relative concentrations using mass spectrometry
• Pathway Activity Inference: Integrate essentiality and proteomic data to predict active metabolic routes [61]

This multi-omics approach was successfully applied to Mycoplasma pneumoniae and Mycoplasma agalactiae, revealing "significant differences in use and direction of key pathways despite sharing the large majority of genes" [61].

Metabolic Network Analysis with Mass Flow Graphs

Mass Flow Graphs (MFGs) provide a powerful framework for analyzing metabolic network properties and deriving features for essentiality prediction. The MFG construction converts FBA solutions into directed graphs where:

• Nodes represent metabolic reactions
• Edges connect nodes if the source reaction produces a metabolite consumed by the target reaction
• Edge weights (wi,j) represent normalized mass flow from node i to node j [60]

The mass flow between reactions i and j for metabolite Xk is calculated as:

Where Flowᴿᵢ⁺(Xₖ) and Flowᴿⱼ⁻(Xₖ) represent metabolite production and consumption flows respectively [60]. This graph representation enables computation of network-based features that capture a reaction's topological importance and flux context.

Diagram: Mass Flow Between Reactions via Shared Metabolite

Experimental Design and Best Practices

Workflow for Comprehensive Model Validation

Diagram: Comprehensive Model Validation Workflow

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for Validation Experiments

Reagent/Resource	Function/Purpose	Example Application
Chemically Defined Medium (CDM)	Controlled growth conditions for carbon source testing	Leave-one-out experiments for auxotrophy validation [59]
KEGG PATHWAY Database	Reference metabolic pathways for gap-filling	Source of candidate reactions for network completion [10] [23]
BiGG Models Database	Curated genome-scale metabolic models	Reference models for manual curation [58]
COBRA Toolbox	MATLAB-based metabolic modeling suite	Implementation of FBA and gap-filling algorithms [23]
BacDive Database	Bacterial phenotype data repository	Enzyme activity validation against experimental data [4]
Transposon Mutagenesis Libraries	High-throughput essentiality screening	Empirical gene essentiality data for model validation [61]

Robust validation of gap-filled metabolic models requires a multifaceted approach spanning gene essentiality predictions, carbon source utilization tests, enzyme activity assays, and multi-omics integration. Each validation metric provides complementary information about different aspects of model quality and biological accuracy. KEGG and similar universal biochemical databases play an indispensable role in the initial gap-filling process, but the biological fidelity of the resulting models must be established through rigorous comparison with experimental data. The frameworks and protocols outlined in this guide provide researchers with comprehensive methodologies for evaluating and refining metabolic models, ultimately enhancing their utility in biomedical and biotechnological applications. As the field advances, integrated approaches combining mechanistic modeling with machine learning show particular promise for improving predictive accuracy while maintaining biological interpretability.

This case study examines the application of the NICEgame (Network Integrated Computational Explorer for Gap Annotation of Metabolism) workflow to enhance the accuracy of the Escherichia coli metabolic model iML1515. The research demonstrates that utilizing an extensive database of known and hypothetical biochemical reactions significantly outperforms traditional methods reliant solely on known biochemistry, such as KEGG, for filling knowledge gaps in metabolic reconstructions. The results underscore the critical role of universal biochemical databases as foundational resources for advancing systems biology, with direct implications for metabolic engineering and drug development.

Table 1: Summary of Gap-Filling Performance for iML1515

Metric	KEGG Reaction Database	ATLAS of Biochemistry (E. coli & Yeast Metabolites)
Number of Rescued Reactions	53 out of 152	93 out of 152
Percentage of Gaps Rescued	~35%	~61%
Average Solutions per Rescued Reaction	2.3	252.5
Associated E. coli Genes Identified	Limited to known annotations	35 genes (33 from iML1515, 2 newly assigned)
Model Accuracy Increase (Gene Essentiality)	Not specifically reported	23.6%

Genome-scale metabolic models (GEMs) are computational representations of an organism's metabolism, crucial for predicting physiological traits and engineering metabolic functions [20]. However, even the most curated GEMs contain knowledge gaps arising from unannotated genes, misannotations, and unknown biochemical pathways [21]. These gaps lead to inaccurate model predictions, such as false essentiality calls, where a model incorrectly predicts a gene is essential for growth when experimental data shows it is not [62] [21].

The standard approach to resolving these gaps, "gap-filling," has traditionally relied on adding known reactions from databases like KEGG [20] [62]. While useful, this method is inherently limited to already discovered biochemistry, potentially missing novel or organism-specific metabolic capabilities. This case study details how the NICEgame workflow overcomes this limitation by leveraging the ATLAS of Biochemistry, a database of over 150,000 known and hypothetical reactions, to systematically identify and reconcile metabolic gaps in the E. coli GEM iML1515 [20] [21].

The NICEgame workflow is a structured, seven-step process for identifying metabolic gaps and proposing biochemically feasible solutions with candidate genes [21].

Detailed Experimental Protocol

The core methodology for applying NICEgame to a GEM involves the following steps [21]:

• Model and Data Harmonization: The metabolite identifiers in the target GEM (e.g., iML1515) are harmonized with those in the ATLAS of Biochemistry to ensure proper connectivity.
• Preprocessing and Gap Identification: The GEM is provided with a defined medium (e.g., glucose minimal media). An in silico gene essentiality analysis is performed by simulating single-gene knockout strains. The results are compared against experimental phenotyping data (e.g., from the Keio Collection of E. coli knockouts) to identify false-negative essentiality predictions—genes deemed essential by the model but non-essential in experiments. These represent the metabolic gaps to be filled.
• Model Merging: The GEM is merged with the ATLAS of Biochemistry to create an "ATLAS-merged GEM," dramatically expanding the available reaction space.
• Comparative Essentiality Analysis: The gene essentiality analysis is repeated on the ATLAS-merged GEM. Reactions (and their associated genes) that are essential in the original GEM but non-essential in the merged model are classified as "rescued." These become the targets for gap-filling.
• Systematic Identification of Alternative Biochemistry: For each rescued reaction, NICEgame identifies all possible alternative pathways from the ATLAS database that could compensate for its loss.
• Evaluation and Ranking of Solutions: The proposed alternative reaction sets are scored and ranked based on multiple criteria:
  • Thermodynamic feasibility is assessed.
  • Solutions that minimize the number of added reactions are favored.
  • Proposals that do not reduce the model's biomass yield are preferred.
  • Solutions that introduce new metabolites or novel enzyme functions (where the third-level EC number is absent from the original GEM) are penalized.
• Gene Annotation: The top-ranked hypothetical reactions are assigned candidate genes from the organism's genome using the tool BridgIT. This tool identifies possible enzyme-coding genes by mapping the substrate reactive sites of the proposed reactions to known enzyme substrates [20] [21].

Diagram 1: The 7-step NICEgame workflow for metabolic gap annotation.

Comparative Analysis: KEGG vs. ATLAS in Gap-Filling

The core thesis of this research hinges on the comparative performance of traditional and novel biochemical databases. The application of NICEgame to the E. coli iML1515 model provided a clear, quantitative comparison.

The iML1515 model contained 148 false essential genes, linked to 152 reactions that the model could not perform without those genes, but the live organism could [20] [21]. When NICEgame used KEGG as its reaction pool, it could only rescue 53 of these 152 reaction gaps. In contrast, using the ATLAS of Biochemistry (constrained to E. coli and yeast metabolites) allowed the workflow to rescue 93 gaps—a 75% increase in coverage [20].

Furthermore, the ATLAS database provided a vastly richer solution space, offering an average of 252.5 possible alternative pathways per rescued reaction compared to only 2.3 from KEGG [20]. This abundance of hypothetical reactions enables researchers to select the most biologically plausible solutions rather than being constrained to a single, potentially incorrect, known reaction.

Table 2: Key Reagent and Database Solutions for Metabolic Gap-Filling

Research Reagent / Resource	Type	Function in Gap-Filling
ATLAS of Biochemistry	Biochemical Database	Provides an extensive set of known and hypothetical biochemical reactions between known metabolites, enabling the exploration of novel metabolic pathways beyond known biochemistry [20] [21].
KEGG (Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes)	Biochemical Database	Serves as a reference of known biochemical reactions and pathways; used as a traditional, limited-scope pool for gap-filling reactions and for initial model reconstruction [5] [62].
BridgIT	Computational Tool	Maps proposed hypothetical biochemical reactions to candidate enzyme-encoding genes in the target organism's genome by comparing substrate reactive sites, enabling functional annotation [20] [21].
SMILEY Algorithm	Computational Algorithm	A mixed-integer linear programming approach used to predict the minimal set of reactions that must be added to a model to enable growth under a specified condition [62].
Keio Collection	Experimental Dataset	A library of single-gene knockout strains of E. coli; provides high-quality experimental gene essentiality data for benchmarking and validating model predictions [62].

Results and Validation: The iEcoMG1655 Model

The culmination of the NICEgame workflow was the creation of an expanded and more accurate GEM for E. coli, named iEcoMG1655. The key outcomes were [20] [21]:

• Expanded Genome Annotation: The workflow proposed 77 new reactions associated with 35 E. coli genes. Of these, 33 were genes already present in iML1515 but were assigned new, promiscuous functions, while two genes (arcA and lacA) were newly added to the reconstruction.
• Improved Predictive Accuracy: The enhanced model was validated against gene essentiality experimental data across 15 different carbon sources. iEcoMG1655 demonstrated a 23.6% increase in prediction accuracy compared to the original iML1515 model.
• Exploration of Underground Metabolism: Beyond resolving the targeted gaps, the workflow suggested over 6,000 thermodynamically feasible reactions associated with 590 candidate promiscuous enzyme-encoding genes in the E. coli genome, charting a map of its potential "underground metabolism" [20].

Diagram 2: Performance outcome of using KEGG versus ATLAS for gap-filling.

The NICEgame case study compellingly argues that the future of metabolic model curation lies in moving beyond databases of known reactions to incorporate hypothetical biochemistry. While universal databases like KEGG remain indispensable for initial reconstruction and as a source of known reactions, their limitations in filling knowledge gaps are evident. The ATLAS of Biochemistry, by encapsulating a much broader space of biochemically plausible reactions, enables a more complete and accurate representation of an organism's metabolic potential.

This approach has profound implications for researchers and drug development professionals. Enhanced GEMs lead to better predictions of cellular behavior, more accurate identification of essential genes that can serve as drug targets in pathogens, and more effective design of microbial cell factories for chemical production. By systematically exploring the unknown metabolic space, tools like NICEgame accelerate the functional annotation of genomes and pave the way for novel discoveries in basic biology and applied biotechnology.

In the field of systems biology, genome-scale metabolic models (GEMs) serve as powerful computational frameworks for predicting phenotypic characteristics from genomic data. The accuracy of these models is critically dependent on the gap-filling process, where missing metabolic reactions are inferred to complete metabolic networks. This technical analysis examines three prominent automated reconstruction tools—gapseq, CarveMe, and ModelSEED—evaluating their performance in predicting bacterial phenotypes. Benchmarks reveal significant differences in accuracy, sensitivity, and computational approach, with gapseq demonstrating superior performance in multiple validation studies while exhibiting substantially longer computation times. Underpinning these tools are universal biochemical databases like KEGG and ModelSEED, which provide the essential reaction templates that enable consistent gap-filling across diverse microbial taxa, highlighting the critical role of database quality and coverage in determining prediction efficacy.

The reconstruction of genome-scale metabolic models begins with annotated genomic data and involves systematically mapping genes to their associated metabolic functions through biochemical databases. Despite advances in genome annotation, even well-studied organisms contain knowledge gaps—missing reactions in metabolic networks that result from incomplete genomic and functional annotations. These gaps manifest as blocked metabolites that cannot be produced or consumed, ultimately limiting the model's predictive capability. Gap-filling algorithms address this limitation by proposing biologically plausible reactions from reference databases to restore metabolic functionality, typically using optimization approaches that minimize the number of additions required to enable target functions like biomass production.

Universal biochemical databases including KEGG (Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes) and ModelSEED provide the foundational reaction sets for this process. These resources offer manually curated pathway maps and reaction modules that represent consolidated biochemical knowledge. The quality, coverage, and curation of these databases directly influence the accuracy of resulting metabolic models, as they determine which reactions are available for inclusion during the gap-filling process. As such, the performance differences between reconstruction tools can often be traced to their underlying biochemical databases and their specific algorithmic approaches to leveraging this information.

Quantitative Performance Comparison

Independent benchmarking studies provide comprehensive performance assessments of the three reconstruction tools, with gapseq consistently outperforming both CarveMe and ModelSEED across multiple metrics.

Table 1: Overall Performance Metrics for Metabolic Reconstruction Tools [63]

Metric	gapseq	CarveMe	ModelSEED
Accuracy	0.80	0.66	0.69
Sensitivity	0.71	0.34	0.33
Specificity	0.82	0.85	0.88
Model File Quality	0.78±0.004	0.32±0.006	0.39±0.016

When evaluated against extensive experimental data including 10,538 enzyme activities across 3,017 organisms and 30 unique enzymes, gapseq demonstrated markedly lower false negative rates (6%) compared to CarveMe (32%) and ModelSEED (28%), while maintaining comparable specificity [4]. This superior performance extends to predicting carbon source utilization and fermentation products, critical capabilities for simulating microbial community interactions.

Table 2: Experimental Validation Results [4]

Validation Type	gapseq	CarveMe	ModelSEED
False Negative Rate	6%	32%	28%
True Positive Rate	53%	27%	30%
Enzyme Activity Prediction	Superior	Intermediate	Lower

Tool Architectures and Methodological Approaches

gapseq: Database-Centric with Advanced Gap-Filling

gapseq employs a bottom-up reconstruction approach that builds models from genomic annotations using a comprehensive, manually curated reaction database derived from ModelSEED but extended with additional bacterial metabolic functions. The database comprises 15,150 reactions (including transporters) and 8,446 metabolites [4]. A key innovation in gapseq is its Linear Programming (LP)-based gap-filling algorithm that resolves network gaps to enable biomass formation while incorporating evidence from sequence homology to reference proteins. This approach reduces medium-specific bias in network structures, enhancing model versatility for predictions under varying chemical environments. gapseq accepts nucleotide sequences in FASTA format as input and utilizes GLPK or CPLEX as solvers [63].

CarveMe: Top-Down with Universal Model Templating

CarveMe employs a top-down reconstruction strategy that begins with a curated, universal metabolic network and "carves out" organism-specific models by removing reactions without genomic evidence [64]. This approach leverages the BiGG universal model as a template and uses a mixed-integer linear programming (MILP) formulation for gap-filling, implemented with the CPLEX solver [63]. CarveMe accepts protein sequences in FASTA format and prioritizes computational efficiency, making it suitable for large-scale model reconstruction projects. However, concerns have been raised about the ongoing maintenance of the BiGG universal model database [65].

ModelSEED: Web-Based Automated Reconstruction

ModelSEED provides a web service-based reconstruction pipeline that operates through the KBase platform, making it accessible to users without local computational resources [4]. The tool employs the ModelSEED biochemistry database as its foundation and utilizes a MILP-based gap-filling approach, though the web interface abstracts solver details from the user [63]. ModelSEED accepts nucleotide sequences in FASTA format and generates models that are immediately usable for flux balance analysis. However, its web-based nature may limit utility for high-throughput analyses of hundreds to thousands of genomes [57].

Table 3: Technical Implementation Characteristics [4] [63]

Characteristic	gapseq	CarveMe	ModelSEED
Reconstruction Approach	Bottom-up	Top-down	Bottom-up
Infrastructure	Local	Local	Web Service
Input Format	Nucleotide FASTA	Protein FASTA	Nucleotide FASTA
Gap-fill Formulation	LP	MILP	MILP
Primary Solver	GLPK/CPLEX	CPLEX	Not Specified
Programming Language	Shell script, R	Python	Perl/JavaScript

Experimental Protocols for Benchmarking

Enzyme Activity Validation Protocol

The enzyme activity validation compared model predictions against the Bacterial Diversity Metadatabase (BacDive), which contains laboratory enzyme activity tests for bacterial characterization [4]. The experimental protocol involved:

• Data Collection: Compilation of 10,538 enzyme activity records covering 3,017 organisms and 30 unique enzymes
• Model Reconstruction: Generation of GEMs for all organisms using each of the three tools
• Enzyme Presence Prediction: Assessment of whether each model contained the enzymatic reaction corresponding to the experimentally tested enzyme
• Statistical Analysis: Calculation of true positive, true negative, false positive, and false negative rates for each tool
• Bias Control: Validation with equal sampling of test data for each EC number to prevent over-representation bias

This protocol specifically highlighted the performance for catalase (EC 1.11.1.6) and cytochrome oxidase (EC 1.9.3.1), which collectively accounted for nearly half of the comparisons and serve as proxies for predicting aerobic lifestyle capabilities [4].

Carbon Source Utilization Assessment

The carbon source utilization protocol evaluated model predictions against experimental data on bacterial substrate usage [4]:

• Growth Condition Definition: Specification of minimal media supplemented with individual carbon sources
• Growth Simulation: Flux balance analysis to predict growth capability on each carbon source
• Experimental Comparison: Comparison of in silico predictions with empirical growth data
• Accuracy Quantification: Calculation of prediction accuracy across diverse taxonomic groups

This assessment is particularly relevant for predicting metabolic interactions in microbial communities, where byproducts from one organism serve as substrates for others [4].

Figure 1: Benchmarking Workflow for Reconstruction Tool Validation

The Role of Universal Biochemical Databases in Gap-Filling

Database Dependencies and Characteristics

All three reconstruction tools depend on universal biochemical databases, though they utilize different resources and implementation strategies:

• gapseq uses a curated reaction database derived from ModelSEED but extended with additional bacterial metabolic functions, comprising 15,150 reactions and 8,446 metabolites [4]
• CarveMe relies on the BiGG universal model as its template database, though concerns about its ongoing maintenance have been noted [65]
• ModelSEED utilizes its namesake ModelSEED biochemistry database as the foundation for reconstruction [4]

These databases provide the essential biochemical "parts list" from which gap-filling algorithms select reactions to complete metabolic networks. The completeness and curation quality of these databases directly impacts reconstruction accuracy, as missing or erroneous reactions propagate into the generated models.

Database Influence on Community Model Predictions

Comparative analyses reveal that the choice of reconstruction tool—and by extension its underlying database—significantly impacts the structure and predictive capability of resulting models. Studies of marine bacterial communities found that models reconstructed from the same metagenome-assembled genomes using different tools exhibited low Jaccard similarity (0.23-0.24 for reactions, 0.37 for metabolites), indicating substantial structural differences attributable to database content and algorithmic approaches [64]. Furthermore, the prediction of exchanged metabolites in community models was more influenced by the reconstruction approach than by the specific bacterial community composition, suggesting a database-driven bias in metabolite interaction predictions [64].

Advanced Gap-Filling Methodologies

Machine Learning Approaches

Recent advances in gap-filling incorporate machine learning techniques to predict missing reactions based on metabolic network topology. The CHESHIRE (CHEbyshev Spectral HyperlInk pREdictor) method uses deep learning to predict missing reactions purely from metabolic network structure without requiring phenotypic data [1]. This approach represents metabolic networks as hypergraphs where reactions connect multiple metabolites, and employs Chebyshev spectral graph convolutional networks to refine metabolite feature vectors. CHESHIRE demonstrated superior performance in recovering artificially removed reactions across 926 GEMs compared to other topology-based methods [1].

Taxonomy-Aware Gap-Filling

Alternative approaches like KEMET address gaps by searching unannotated genes using custom Hidden Markov Models created based on the genome's taxonomy [9]. This method leverages taxonomic conservation of metabolic functions but is limited by the genome taxonomies available in reference databases. Similarly, MetaPathPredict employs deep learning models to predict the presence of KEGG modules within incomplete genomes, demonstrating robust predictions with genomes as incomplete as 30% [9].

Figure 2: Advanced Gap-Filling Methodologies Beyond Traditional Approaches

Practical Implementation Considerations

Computational Resource Requirements

Significant differences exist in the computational demands of each tool, impacting their suitability for large-scale studies:

• gapseq requires substantial computation time, with reports of 5.46 hours per genome for draft model construction (excluding gap-filling), making it less suitable for datasets comprising hundreds to thousands of genomes [57]
• CarveMe offers rapid reconstruction, with mean processing times of 20-30 seconds per genome, facilitating high-throughput analyses [57]
• ModelSEED through KBase requires approximately 3 minutes per genome via batch analysis, including upload time and queueing [57]

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table 4: Essential Resources for Metabolic Reconstruction and Validation

Resource	Function	Application Context
BacDive Database	Provides experimental phenotype data for validation	Enzyme activity tests for 3,017 organisms [4]
KEGG MODULE	Curated functional units of metabolic pathways	Training data for machine learning approaches [9]
Biolog Phenotype MicroArrays	High-throughput growth profiling on carbon sources	Experimental validation of substrate usage predictions [66]
COBRA Toolbox	MATLAB package for constraint-based modeling	Model simulation and analysis [67]
AGORA Database	Resource of 818 gut bacterial metabolic models	Reference for extending dietary compound coverage [67]

This performance comparison demonstrates that gapseq achieves superior accuracy in predicting enzyme activities and metabolic phenotypes compared to CarveMe and ModelSEED, though at the cost of significantly longer computation times. The underlying biochemical databases play a crucial role in determining reconstruction quality, with database-specific biases affecting model structure and community interaction predictions. Emerging approaches incorporating machine learning and taxonomy-aware algorithms show promise for advancing gap-filling beyond traditional methods, potentially reducing dependency on experimental data for curating metabolic networks.

Future developments in metabolic reconstruction will likely focus on integrating multiple databases to overcome individual limitations, with consensus approaches showing promise for capturing more comprehensive metabolic capabilities [64]. Additionally, the application of large-language models and knowledge graphs may enable more sophisticated reasoning about metabolic network completeness, further bridging the gap between genomic sequences and phenotypic predictions. As these tools evolve, their capacity to accurately predict microbial phenotypes will continue to enhance applications in metabolic engineering, drug discovery, and microbial ecology.

Genome-scale metabolic models (GEMs) are powerful computational tools that provide a mathematical representation of an organism's metabolism, enabling the prediction of cellular metabolic fluxes and physiological states [1]. The reconstruction of high-quality GEMs is fundamental to advancing disciplines ranging from metabolic engineering and microbial ecology to drug discovery. However, our knowledge of metabolic processes remains imperfect, leading to pervasive knowledge gaps in even the most carefully curated models [1] [20]. The emergence of machine learning is transforming how researchers address these gaps, offering methods that can learn directly from the structure of metabolic networks themselves.

This whitepaper examines the CHESHIRE method (CHEbyshev Spectral HyperlInk pREdictor), a novel deep learning approach for predicting missing reactions in GEMs. We explore its performance on both artificially perturbed networks and draft reconstructions, framing its development within the broader ecosystem of gap-filling methodologies that rely on universal biochemical databases like KEGG and MetaCyc.

The Gap-Filling Landscape: From Biochemical Databases to Topological Learning

The Role of Universal Biochemical Databases

Traditional gap-filling methods are predominantly constraint-based, relying on biochemical reaction databases to identify solutions for metabolic inconsistencies.

• Database-Dependent Methods: Algorithms like GapFill and those implemented in tools such as gapseq identify dead-end metabolites and add reactions from reference databases such as KEGG, MetaCyc, BiGG, and ModelSEED to restore network connectivity and enable functionality such as biomass production [5] [3] [4]. These methods often require phenotypic data to identify model-data inconsistencies.
• Expanding the Solution Space: The NICEgame workflow significantly expands potential solutions by incorporating the ATLAS of Biochemistry, which includes both known and hypothetical reactions derived from enzyme function mechanisms. In a case study on an E. coli GEM, this increased the average number of solutions per rescued reaction from 2.3 (using KEGG alone) to 252.5 [20].
• Community-Aware Gap-Filling: Recent advances include methods that resolve gaps at the microbial community level, allowing incomplete metabolic models of different organisms to fill gaps cooperatively through simulated metabolic interactions [3].

The Emergence of Topology-Based Machine Learning

A paradigm shift is underway with the advent of methods that require no experimental data input, instead leveraging the inherent topological information within metabolic networks. These methods frame the problem of finding missing reactions as a hyperlink prediction task on a hypergraph, where each reaction is represented as a hyperlink connecting all its participating metabolite nodes [1]. CHESHIRE exists within this emerging class of algorithms, which also includes tools like the Neural Hyperlink Predictor (NHP) and Clique Closure-based Coordinated Matrix Minimization (C3MM) [1].

CHESHIRE: A Deep Learning Framework for Metabolic Hypergraph Completion

CHESHIRE is designed to overcome key limitations of existing topology-based machine learning methods, namely the loss of higher-order information and limited scalability [1]. Its architecture consists of four major steps, as illustrated below.

Workflow Title: CHESHIRE's Four-Step Learning Architecture

Detailed Methodology

Step 1: Feature Initialization CHESHIRE employs an encoder-based one-layer neural network to generate an initial feature vector for each metabolite from the hypergraph's incidence matrix. This vector encodes the crude topological relationship of a metabolite with all reactions in the network [1].

Step 2: Feature Refinement with Chebyshev Spectral Graph Convolutional Network (CSGCN) To capture complex metabolite-metabolite interactions, CHESHIRE uses a CSGCN on a decomposed graph (built from the hypergraph) to refine each metabolite's feature vector. This step allows the model to incorporate features from other metabolites involved in the same reaction, preserving higher-order information that is lost in graph approximations [1].

Step 3: Pooling This step integrates node-level (metabolite) features into hyperlink-level (reaction) representations. CHESHIRE combines two pooling functions:

• A maximum minimum-based function (as used in NHP) to capture extreme feature values.
• A Frobenius norm-based function to provide complementary information about the distribution of metabolite features [1].

Step 4: Scoring The pooled feature vector for each reaction is fed into a one-layer neural network to produce a probabilistic score indicating the confidence of the reaction's existence in the network [1].

Experimental Protocol for Internal Validation

The internal validation of CHESHIRE followed a rigorous protocol to test its ability to recover artificially removed reactions [1]:

• Reaction Set Splitting: Metabolic reactions from a given GEM were split into a training set (60%) and a testing set (40%) over 10 Monte Carlo runs.
• Negative Sampling: For both training and testing sets, negative (non-existent) reactions were created at a 1:1 ratio to positive reactions. This was done by replacing half (rounded if needed) of the metabolites in each positive reaction with randomly selected metabolites from a universal metabolite pool.
• Model Training and Evaluation:
  • In the first validation type, the training set (positive + negative reactions) was used for model training, and the testing set (positive + negative reactions) was used for evaluation.
  • In the second validation type, the testing set was mixed with real reactions from a universal database instead of artificially created negative reactions.

Performance Benchmarking: CHESHIRE vs. State-of-the-Art Methods

Internal Validation on Artificially Introduced Gaps

CHESHIRE was benchmarked against several topology-based methods, including NHP, C3MM, and the baseline Node2Vec-mean (NVM), on 108 high-quality BiGG models. The table below summarizes the key performance metrics.

Table 1: Performance Comparison on Artificial Gap-Filling (Internal Validation)

Method	Key Approach	Reported AUROC	Strengths	Limitations
CHESHIRE	Deep learning with hypergraph topology & CSGCN	~0.95 (Highest)	Superior accuracy; No phenotypic data required; Better hypergraph representation	Requires negative sampling; Computational complexity
NHP (Neural Hyperlink Predictor)	Neural network with graph approximation	Lower than CHESHIRE	Separates candidate reactions from training	Loses higher-order information via graph approximation
C3MM (Clique Closure-based Coordinated Matrix Minimization)	Integrated training-prediction with matrix minimization	Lower than CHESHIRE	Integrated process	Limited scalability; Model must be re-trained for each new reaction pool
Node2Vec-mean (NVM)	Random walk graph embedding with mean pooling	Lowest (Baseline)	Architectural simplicity	No feature refinement; Lower predictive accuracy

CHESHIRE consistently outperformed all other methods across different classification metrics, including Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic curve (AUROC), demonstrating its robust predictive power for recovering missing reactions [1].

External Validation on Draft GEMs for Phenotypic Prediction

Beyond internal recovery tests, CHESHIRE was externally validated for its ability to improve the accuracy of phenotypic predictions on 49 draft GEMs reconstructed by common pipelines (CarveMe and ModelSEED). After curating these draft models with CHESHIRE, the accuracy of predictions for the secretion of fermentation products and amino acids was significantly improved [1]. This validation confirms that CHESHIRE is not only a theoretical tool but also has practical utility in refining models for biologically meaningful predictions.

Comparative Performance with Other Modern Tools

Other tools have also demonstrated strong performance in specific areas of pathway prediction and model reconstruction, as shown in the table below.

Table 2: Performance of Other Notable Metabolic Analysis Tools

Tool	Approach	Application/Performance
gapseq	Automated reconstruction & LP-based gap-filling	53% true positive rate for enzyme activity vs. 27% (CarveMe) and 30% (ModelSEED); 6% false negative rate [4]
MetaPathPredict	Deep learning prediction of KEGG modules	Accurately predicts module presence in genomes with as low as 30% completeness; outperforms rule-based classifiers and other ML models [9]
NICEgame	Gap-filling using known & hypothetical reactions from ATLAS	Rescued 93/152 false essential reaction gaps in E. coli (vs. 53/152 using KEGG); 23.6% increase in gene essentiality prediction accuracy [20]

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents & Databases

Table 3: Key Resources for Metabolic Gap-Filling Research

Resource Name	Type	Primary Function in Gap-Filling
KEGG	Biochemical Database	Source of known reactions, pathways, and modules for database-dependent gap-filling and validation [5] [9]
MetaCyc	Biochemical Database	Curated database of metabolic reactions and pathways used as a reference pool for adding reactions [3]
BiGG	Knowledgebase	Repository of high-quality, curated genome-scale metabolic models used for benchmarking [1]
ATLAS of Biochemistry	Reaction Database	Extensive database of known and hypothetical reactions; expands solution space for novel gap-filling [20]
ModelSEED	Biochemistry Database & Reconstruction Platform	Provides a standardized biochemistry database and automated model reconstruction pipeline [1] [4]
Negative Reaction Pool	Computational Construct	Artificially generated non-existent reactions used to train and balance machine learning models like CHESHIRE [1]

CHESHIRE represents a significant advancement in the field of metabolic model curation by demonstrating that deep learning applied purely to network topology can successfully predict missing reactions and improve phenotypic predictions. Its development does not render universal biochemical databases obsolete but rather highlights a complementary path forward. While databases like KEGG and MetaCyc remain foundational for knowledge-driven approaches and expanding the solution space with hypothetical reactions, topology-based machine learning offers a powerful, data-agnostic alternative, especially for non-model organisms where experimental data is scarce.

The future of metabolic network reconstruction lies in the intelligent integration of both paradigms—leveraging the vast knowledge contained in biochemical databases while harnessing the pattern recognition capabilities of advanced machine learning models like CHESHIRE.

The study of microorganisms has traditionally focused on individual species in isolation, a paradigm that fails to capture the complex interactions that characterize natural microbial environments. In nature, microbes exist in complex communities where metabolic interactions are key to the macroscopic behavior of these ecosystems [3]. The limitations of single-organism models have become increasingly apparent, driving the development of sophisticated computational approaches that can simulate multi-species interactions. This shift is particularly crucial for applications in biotechnology, ecology, and medicine, where microbial communities play pivotal roles [3].

Central to this paradigm shift is the integration of universal biochemical databases like KEGG (Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes) into the modeling process. These databases provide the structured biochemical knowledge necessary to simulate metabolic exchanges between organisms, enabling researchers to move beyond single-species metabolic reconstructions toward comprehensive community models [68]. KEGG serves as a foundational resource that maps genomic information to higher-level cellular and ecosystem functions, creating a bridge between genetic potential and community-level metabolic emergence [69].

The challenge of metabolic gaps—missing reactions in metabolic reconstructions due to genome misannotations and unknown enzyme functions—becomes exponentially more complex in community modeling. Where traditional gap-filling algorithms focused on restoring growth in individual organisms, community gap-filling must resolve metabolic dependencies across species boundaries, acknowledging that what one organism cannot produce, another may supply [3]. This article explores the implications of this fundamental shift, examining how biochemical databases enable the transition from single-organism to community-level metabolic modeling.

Theoretical Foundation: Microbial Community Metabolism

Key Principles of Microbial Interactions

Microbial communities exhibit complex interaction networks that can be broadly categorized into cooperative and competitive relationships. Cooperative interactions include cross-feeding, where one species consumes metabolites produced by another, and syntrophy, where multiple species together degrade substrates that none could utilize independently [3]. For instance, in the human gut, Faecalibacterium prausnitzii consumes acetate produced by bifidobacterial species and converts it to butyrate, creating a metabolic interaction that benefits both organisms and the host [3].

Competitive interactions emerge when community members vie for limited resources, creating selective pressures that shape community structure. In many cases, cooperative and competitive interactions coexist, as seen in the relationship between Bifidobacterium adolescentis and Faecalibacterium prausnitzii, which compete for common carbon sources while simultaneously engaging in syntrophic relationships [3]. Understanding these dynamics requires modeling approaches that can capture both the individual metabolic capabilities of community members and the emergent properties of their interactions.

Constraint-Based Modeling for Microbial Communities

Constraint-based modeling approaches provide a mathematical framework for simulating microbial community metabolism by applying mass-balance, thermodynamic, and capacity constraints to genome-scale metabolic models [3]. Several computational frameworks have been developed specifically for modeling microbial communities:

Table 1: Constraint-Based Modeling Methods for Microbial Communities

Method	Key Features	Applications
SteadyCom	Predicts steady-state compositions	Community structure analysis
OptCom	Multi-level optimization	Metabolic interaction analysis
d-OptCom	Dynamic extension of OptCom	Time-dependent community modeling
DMMM	Dynamic multispecies modeling	Population dynamics prediction
COMETS	Incorporates spatial structure	Spatial ecosystem modeling

These methods enable researchers to evaluate growth rates and metabolic interactions of community members under various conditions, moving beyond the limitations of single-species models [3]. The effectiveness of these approaches, however, depends heavily on the completeness and accuracy of the underlying metabolic reconstructions for each community member, which is where universal databases and gap-filling algorithms play a crucial role.

The Critical Role of KEGG and Universal Biochemical Databases

KEGG Database Architecture and Components

The KEGG database provides a comprehensive knowledge framework that links genomic information with higher-order metabolic functions through several interconnected components:

• KEGG ORTHOLOGY (KO): A classification system that groups proteins (enzymes) with sequence similarity and similar functional roles in metabolic pathways, providing a standardized framework for annotating metabolic functions across diverse organisms [68].

• KEGG PATHWAY: A collection of manually drawn pathway maps representing metabolic pathways, genetic information processing, environmental information processing, cellular processes, organismal systems, and human diseases [69] [68].

• KEGG MODULE: Functional units of genes and molecules that represent specific metabolic capabilities or functional units, used for genomic annotation and biological interpretation [69].

• KEGG GENES: Contains information about genes and proteins from sequenced genomes, facilitating the connection between genetic elements and their metabolic functions [68].

The hierarchical structure of KEGG PATHWAY organizes metabolic knowledge into multiple layers, with the second level containing 39 distinct subcategories that are further refined into specific pathway maps and individual reaction annotations [69]. This structured organization enables systematic annotation of metabolic capabilities and identification of potential gaps in metabolic networks.

KEGG's Role in Metabolic Reconstruction and Gap-Filling

KEGG serves as a critical reference database for metabolic reconstruction and gap-filling algorithms. Automated reconstruction tools like ModelSEED and gapseq utilize KEGG to link genomic annotations to biochemical reactions, creating draft metabolic models from genomic data [3] [4]. These draft models invariably contain metabolic gaps due to incomplete genomic annotations, fragmented genomes, and database limitations [3] [4].

The gap-filling process leverages KEGG as a reference reaction database to identify and add missing metabolic functions necessary for network functionality. Advanced tools like gapseq employ a Linear Programming (LP)-based gap-filling algorithm that uses KEGG reactions to restore network connectivity and enable specific metabolic functions, such as biomass formation on a given medium [4]. This process is guided by both network topology information and sequence homology to reference proteins in databases like KEGG, increasing the biological relevance of the added reactions [4].

Table 2: Biochemical Databases Used in Metabolic Reconstruction and Gap-Filling

Database	Primary Focus	Role in Gap-Filling
KEGG	Integrated genomic, chemical, and systemic functional information	Provides reference reactions and pathway maps for gap-filling algorithms
MetaCyc	Curated biochemical reactions and pathways	Source of non-redundant biochemical transformations
ModelSEED	Biochemistry database for metabolic modeling	Standardized biochemistry for reconstruction platforms
BiGG	Curated genome-scale metabolic models	Reference for biochemical reactions and metabolite identities

Community-Level Gap-Filling: Methodological Advances

The Community Gap-Filling Algorithm

Traditional gap-filling algorithms operate on individual metabolic models, adding reactions from reference databases to restore metabolic functionality such as growth on specific substrates [3]. The novel community gap-filling approach extends this concept by simultaneously considering multiple incomplete metabolic reconstructions of microorganisms that coexist in microbial communities, allowing them to interact metabolically during the gap-filling process [3].

The community gap-filling method can be formulated as an optimization problem that identifies the minimal set of reactions that must be added across all community members to enable a target community function, such as sustained co-growth or production of specific metabolites. This approach can be implemented using Linear Programming (LP) formulations that minimize the sum of flux through gap-filled reactions, with reactions weighted by confidence metrics [42]. LP-based solutions have been found to be computationally efficient while maintaining solution quality comparable to more computationally expensive Mixed Integer Linear Programming (MILP) formulations [42].

The algorithm follows these key steps:

• Compartmentalization: Building compartmentalized metabolic models of microbial communities from genome-scale metabolic models of individual microorganisms.
• Interaction Enablement: Allowing metabolic exchanges between community members through shared extracellular metabolites.
• Community Objective: Optimizing for community-level functions rather than individual growth.
• Minimal Intervention: Adding the minimum number of biochemical reactions from reference databases to enable the target community function.

This approach not only resolves metabolic gaps but also predicts non-intuitive metabolic interdependencies in microbial communities, providing insights that would be difficult to obtain experimentally [3].

Workflow Implementation

The following diagram illustrates the community gap-filling workflow, highlighting how KEGG and other biochemical databases enable the prediction of metabolic interactions:

Experimental Protocols and Validation

Community Gap-Filling Protocol

The following step-by-step protocol outlines the community gap-filling process, adaptable for tools like gapseq or KBase:

Step 1: Community Model Construction

• Obtain genome-scale metabolic reconstructions for each community member through automated reconstruction tools (e.g., ModelSEED, CarveMe, gapseq) or manual curation.
• Define community structure by creating a compartmentalized model with separate intracellular spaces for each organism and a shared extracellular space.
• Establish metabolite exchange mechanisms by adding transport reactions for metabolites that can be shared between community members.

Step 2: Define Community Objective Function

• Identify an appropriate objective function for the community, which could include:
  • Total community biomass production
  • Production rate of a specific metabolite of interest
  • Weighted combination of individual growth rates
• Set constraints on metabolite uptake rates based on the simulated environment.

Step 3: Configure Gap-Filling Parameters

• Select appropriate reference database (KEGG, ModelSEED, MetaCyc) as the source of candidate reactions for gap-filling.
• Set reaction penalties to prioritize biologically plausible reactions:
  • Lower penalties for reactions with genomic evidence
  • Higher penalties for transporter reactions and non-KEGG reactions
  • Intermediate penalties for reactions without genomic evidence but present in closely related organisms
• Define the gap-filling medium condition, ideally using minimal media to force comprehensive pathway completion.

Step 4: Execute Community Gap-Filling

• Run the community gap-filling algorithm to identify the minimal set of reactions that must be added to the community model to achieve the objective function.
• For LP-based formulations, minimize the sum of flux through gap-filled reactions.
• Incorporate the gap-filling solutions into the community model.

Step 5: Validate and Curate Results

• Check thermodynamic feasibility of added reactions and pathways.
• Verify that added reactions are consistent with the known biology of the organisms.
• Compare predictions with experimental data if available.
• Iterate the process with different media conditions to increase model versatility.

Validation Case Studies

Synthetic Escherichia coli Community

A synthetic community comprised of two auxotrophic Escherichia coli strains—an obligatory glucose consumer and an obligatory acetate consumer—was used to validate the community gap-filling approach [3]. This system represents the well-known phenomenon of acetate cross-feeding that emerges among E. coli strains growing in homogeneous environments with glucose as the sole carbon source [3].

Experimental Protocol:

• Create separate metabolic models for each E. strain with intentional gaps corresponding to their auxotrophies.
• Apply community gap-filling with the objective of achieving co-growth on glucose minimal medium.
• Verify that the algorithm adds the necessary metabolic capabilities to enable cross-feeding.
• Compare the predicted metabolic interactions with experimental observations of acetate cross-feeding.

The community gap-filling method successfully restored growth in this synthetic community by adding the minimal number of biochemical reactions needed to enable metabolic cross-feeding [3].

Human Gut Microbiota Community

The community gap-filling approach was applied to a community of Bifidobacterium adolescentis and Faecalibacterium prausnitzii, two important bacterial members of the human gut microbiome [3]. This system represents a more complex, naturally occurring microbial interaction with significance for human health.

Experimental Protocol:

• Obtain draft metabolic reconstructions for both species from available genomic data.
• Apply community gap-filling with the objective of achieving co-growth on complex carbohydrates typical of the human diet.
• Analyze the added reactions to identify predicted metabolic interactions.
• Validate predictions against experimental studies of cocultures [3].

This analysis predicted both competitive and cooperative interactions between the species, including competition for carbon sources and syntrophic relationships where acetate produced by B. adolescentis was consumed by F. prausnitzii for butyrate production [3]. Butyrate is a metabolically significant short-chain fatty acid with beneficial effects on gut health [3].

Essential Research Reagents and Computational Tools

Successful implementation of community metabolic modeling requires a suite of computational tools and biochemical databases. The following table details key resources and their applications in community gap-filling research:

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Computational Tools for Community Metabolic Modeling

Resource	Type	Primary Function	Application in Community Modeling
KEGG Database	Biochemical Database	Reference metabolic pathways and reactions	Provides curated biochemical knowledge for gap-filling algorithms
gapseq	Software Tool	Metabolic pathway prediction and model reconstruction	Informed prediction of bacterial metabolic pathways using curated reaction database
ModelSEED	Biochemistry Database & Platform	Automated metabolic reconstruction	Standardized biochemistry for consistent model building
CarveMe	Software Tool	Automated metabolic model reconstruction	Creates compartmentalized community models from genome sequences
COBRA Toolbox	Software Package	Constraint-based modeling	Implements gap-filling algorithms and community simulation methods
AGORA	Metabolic Reconstruction Resource	818 curated gut microbial models	Reference reconstructions for human gut microbiome studies
AGREDA	Extended Metabolic Reconstruction	Diet metabolism in human gut microbiota	Expanded coverage of dietary compound metabolism
PICRUSt2	Software Tool	Functional prediction from 16S rRNA data	Predicts metabolic potential from marker gene sequences

These resources collectively enable the reconstruction, gap-filling, and simulation of microbial community metabolism, with KEGG serving as a foundational component that provides the biochemical "parts list" for building functional community models.

Metabolic Interaction Networks and Visualization

Microbial communities form complex metabolic interaction networks that can be represented and analyzed as graph structures. The following diagram illustrates the key metabolic interactions in a model gut community involving Bifidobacterium adolescentis and Faecalibacterium prausnitzii:

This diagram illustrates the metabolic cross-feeding between B. adolescentis and F. prausnitzii, where acetate produced by B. adolescentis serves as a substrate for butyrate production by F. prausnitzii, ultimately benefiting the human host through butyrate's anti-inflammatory effects and role as an energy source for colonocytes [3].

Community gap-filling algorithms can predict such interaction networks by identifying metabolic dependencies and complementarities between community members. The algorithms detect where one organism's metabolic gaps can be filled by another organism's capabilities, revealing potential syntrophic relationships that maintain ecosystem stability and function.

The integration of universal biochemical databases like KEGG with advanced gap-filling algorithms has fundamentally transformed our approach to modeling microbial communities. By providing a comprehensive framework of biochemical knowledge, these databases enable researchers to move beyond the limitations of single-organism models and capture the emergent metabolic properties of microbial ecosystems. Community-level gap-filling represents a paradigm shift in metabolic reconstruction, acknowledging that metabolic capabilities are distributed across community members rather than contained within individual organisms.

Future developments in this field will likely focus on several key areas:

• Improved Database Coverage: Expanding the representation of diverse metabolic functions, particularly for understudied environments and non-model organisms.
• Integration of Multi-Omics Data: Incorporating transcriptomic, proteomic, and metabolomic data to create condition-specific community models.
• Dynamic Modeling Enhancements: Developing better approaches for simulating temporal and spatial dynamics in microbial communities.
• Machine Learning Integration: Leveraging pattern recognition in large-scale metabolic models to improve gap-filling predictions.

As these technical advances mature, community metabolic modeling will become an increasingly powerful tool for understanding and engineering microbial ecosystems for applications in biotechnology, medicine, and environmental management. The continued refinement of KEGG and similar resources will be essential for supporting these developments, ensuring that our computational models remain grounded in comprehensive biochemical knowledge.

Conclusion

Universal biochemical databases like KEGG are indispensable for transforming incomplete genomic data into predictive, genome-scale metabolic models. The evolution of gap-filling methodologies—from classic optimization algorithms to sophisticated machine learning and integrated workflows—has significantly enhanced our ability to postulate and validate missing metabolic functions. These advances directly improve the accuracy of phenotypic predictions for model organisms and uncultivable microbes, with profound implications for metabolic engineering, drug target discovery, and understanding host-microbiome interactions. Future directions will be shaped by the continuous curation of biochemical knowledge, the integration of multi-omics data for more constrained predictions, and the development of algorithms that can more effectively explore the vast space of unknown biochemistry, ultimately accelerating biomedical and biotechnological innovation.

References

• 1. Teasing out missing reactions in genome-scale metabolic ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-38110-7]
• 2. How accurate is automated gap filling of metabolic models? [https://bmcsystbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12918-018-0593-7]
• 3. A gap-filling algorithm for prediction of metabolic interactions ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8584699/]
• 4. gapseq: informed prediction of bacterial metabolic pathways ... [https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13059-021-02295-1]
• 5. Screening of Potential Drug Targets Based on the Genome ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12293652/]
• 6. Visualizing metabolic network dynamics through time-series ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7119163/]
• 7. KEGG: Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes [https://www.genome.jp/kegg/]
• 8. Beginner for KEGG Pathway Analysis: The Complete Guide [https://www.metwarebio.com/kegg-pathway-analysis-complete-guide/]
• 9. Predicting metabolic modules in incomplete bacterial ... [https://elifesciences.org/articles/85749]
• 10. KEGG PATHWAY Database [https://www.genome.jp/kegg/pathway.html]
• 11. KEGG Mapper Color [https://www.genome.jp/kegg/mapper/color.html]
• 12. KO (KEGG ORTHOLOGY) Database [https://www.genome.jp/kegg/ko.html]
• 13. KEGG Reaction Module [https://www.genome.jp/kegg/reaction/rmodule.html]
• 14. KEGG as a reference resource for gene and protein ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4702792/]
• 15. KEGG REACTION Database [https://www.genome.jp/kegg/reaction/]
• 16. KEGG ENZYME Database [https://www.genome.jp/kegg/annotation/enzyme.html]
• 17. KGML (KEGG Markup Language) [https://www.kegg.jp/kegg/xml/]
• 18. KEGG Database Entry Format [https://www.kegg.jp/kegg/docs/dbentry.html]
• 19. KEGG API Manual [https://www.kegg.jp/kegg/rest/keggapi.html]
• 20. Filling gaps in metabolism using hypothetical reactions [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9894222/]
• 21. A workflow for annotating the knowledge gaps in metabolic ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9674266/]
• 22. A gap-filling algorithm for prediction of metabolic interactions ... [https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009060]
• 23. fastGapFill: efficient gap filling in metabolic networks - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4147887/]
• 24. Optimization-based framework with flux balance analysis (FBA ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12578352/]
• 25. analysis in Metabolic processes flux biotechnology [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18224283/]
• 26. analysis in Metabolic processes | flux ... biotechnology Biotechnology [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10529-008-9633-5]
• 27. Learning motif features and topological structure of molecules ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12013036/]
• 28. KEGG mapping tools for uncovering hidden features in biological data - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8740838/]
• 29. KEGG Mapper for inferring cellular functions from protein sequences - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6933857/]
• 30. KEGG Mapper [https://www.genome.jp/kegg/mapper/]
• 31. Enzyme Annotation and Metabolic Reconstruction Using KEGG - PubMed [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28451977/]
• 32. How to Download KEGG Database: A Comprehensive ... [https://www.cd-genomics.com/blog/kegg-databse-download-comprehensive-guide/]
• 33. KEGG Mapper Reconstruct [https://www.kegg.jp/kegg/mapper/reconstruct.html]
• 34. Key Biological Databases Every Researcher Should Know [https://www.cleavebio.com/blog/ngs-libraries-171/key-biological-databases-every-researcher-should-know-61]
• 35. Updated ATLAS of Biochemistry with New Metabolites and ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7309321/]
• 36. ATLAS of biochemistry - LCSB Database [https://lcsb-databases.epfl.ch/pathways/atlas/]
• 37. Tutorial "Using Python for Hypergraph Learning: Focus on the ... [https://deams.units.it/it/eventi/321849]
• 38. HYPER: A Foundation Model for Inductive Link Prediction ... [https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.12362]
• 39. HYPER: A Foundation Model for Inductive Link Prediction ... [https://openreview.net/forum?id=YLTQbMoAaX]
• 40. Gapfill Metabolic Model | KBase App [https://kbase.us/applist/apps/fba_tools/gapfill_metabolic_model/release]
• 41. How AI Is Irrevocably Altering the DNA of Drug Development [https://www.drugpatentwatch.com/blog/how-ai-is-already-changing-drug-development/?srsltid=AfmBOopBfgstqybo5v7PPfu2wxt_EDSFN-k8mo-uqAuMSmLQ-NV7GBNr]
• 42. FAQ: Metabolic Modeling [https://docs.kbase.us/workflows/metabolic-models/faq-metabolic-modeling]
• 43. g2f as a Novel Tool to Find and Fill Gaps in Metabolic Networks [https://rjournal.github.io/articles/RJ-2021-064/]
• 44. Basic concepts and principles of stoichiometric modeling ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4671265/]
• 45. Compartmentalization of the Edinburgh Human Metabolic ... [https://bmcbioinformatics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2105-11-393]
• 46. compiling features of biochemical reactions needed for the ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1839895/]
• 47. KEGG Atlas mapping for global analysis of metabolic ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2447737/]
• 48. Spatial modeling algorithms for reactions and transport in ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s43588-024-00745-x]
• 49. An efficient algorithm for de novo predictions of biochemical ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3521390/]
• 50. Prioritization and functional validation of target genes from ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-023-05006-7]
• 51. Network pharmacology, bioinformatics, and experimental ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405844024048643]
• 52. DNA evidence closes gaps in global conservation ... [https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1100195]
• 53. The 2025 Nucleic Acids Research database issue and ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11701706/]
• 54. fastGapFill: efficient gap in metabolic networks filling [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24812336/]
• 55. Overview KEGG [https://www.kegg.jp/kegg/kegg1a.html]
• 56. : biological systems KEGG as a model of the real world database [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39417505/]
• 57. A tool for high-throughput generation of bacterial strain ... [https://elifesciences.org/reviewed-preprints/87406/reviews]
• 58. Machine learning methods for predicting essential metabolic ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11666047/]
• 59. Reconstruction and application of a genome-scale metabolic ... [https://bmcgenomics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12864-025-12195-4]
• 60. Integration of graph neural networks and genome-scale ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41540-024-00348-2]
• 61. Inferring Active Metabolic Pathways from Proteomics and ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7273199/]
• 62. Gap-filling analysis of the iJO1366 Escherichia coli metabolic ... [https://bmcsystbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1752-0509-6-30]
• 63. gapseq: informed prediction of bacterial metabolic pathways ... [https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13059-021-02295-1/tables/1]
• 64. Comparative analysis of metabolic models of microbial ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11116368/]
• 65. Bactabolize is a tool for high-throughput generation of ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10564454/]
• 66. Gap-filling analysis of the iJO1366 Escherichia coli metabolic ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3423039/]
• 67. An extended reconstruction of human gut microbiota ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-25056-x]
• 68. KEGG数据库的使用方法与介绍 [https://college.mimazi.net/cms/article-206.html]
• 69. 微生物群落基于KEGG预测功能的丰度分布图绘制转载 [https://blog.csdn.net/woodcorpse/article/details/107805169]