-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 321
New issue
Have a question about this project? # for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “#”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? # to your account
'Infeasible' results from simulatePairwiseInteractions #2213
Comments
… On Wed, 10 Jan 2024 at 11:25, majunyeong ***@***.***> wrote:
I am trying to predict interactions between microbes using the
simulatePairwiseInteractions function with my models created through
CarveMe.
I modified the 'HighFiberDiet_Oxygen' condition provided in the tutorial ("
https://opencobra.github.io/cobratoolbox/stable/tutorials/tutorialMicrobeMicrobeInteractions.html")
to fit my model.
my_dietConstraints_240102.txt
<https://github.com/opencobra/cobratoolbox/files/13886550/my_dietConstraints_240102.txt>
(ex) EX_fuc_L[u] --> EX_fuc__L[u] (BiGG format)
However, I got the following result:
infeasible_result.png (view on web)
<https://github.com/opencobra/cobratoolbox/assets/87792306/2acd57ed-b4db-4652-bc26-9b06bd1b0111>
Most of the results were 'Infeasible'. Even more confusing, some pairs
used the same diet and got normal results like 'Parasitism' or
'Amensalism', while others got results like 'No_Result'.
I have found the following similar issue, which has not been resolved
: #2009 <#2009>
I also checked to make sure that the exchange functions I put in as
dietConstraints in the paired models I used for testing existed for the
most part. I found that on average, about 52% of the exchange functions in
the dietConstraints are present in the paired model. When I did the same
analysis using the AGORA models and the dietConstraints from the tutorial,
I found that on average about 60% of the exchange functions in the
dietConstraints were also present in the AGORA paired model. The problem
didn't seem to be caused by the dietConstraint I modified not being
recognized by my paired models.
How can I solve this problem?
*I hereby confirm that I have:*
- Tried to solve the issue on my own
- Retried to run my code with the latest version of The COBRA Toolbox
- Checked that a similar issue has not already been opened
*(Note: You may replace [ ] with [X] to check the box)*
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#2213>, or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAQMEOUPXCP6TWNSMEXCK43YNZ3DZAVCNFSM6AAAAABBUT34AOVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43ASLTON2WKOZSGA3TIMJWGIZDSOA>
.
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message
ID: ***@***.***>
--
--
Mr. Ronan MT Fleming B.V.M.S. Dip. Math. Ph.D.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Associate Professor,
School of Medicine,
University of Galway,
Ireland.
Coordinator of the Horizon Europe project "Reconstruction and Computational
Modelling for Inherited Metabolic Diseases" (Recon4IMD
<https://www.recon4imd.org/>)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peer-reviewed publications: https://goo.gl/FZPG23
Mobile: +353 852 109 806
Github: @rmtfleming <https://github.com/rmtfleming>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Hello, |
# for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
# to comment
I am trying to predict interactions between microbes using the simulatePairwiseInteractions function with my models created through CarveMe.
I modified the 'HighFiberDiet_Oxygen' condition provided in the tutorial ("https://opencobra.github.io/cobratoolbox/stable/tutorials/tutorialMicrobeMicrobeInteractions.html") to fit my model.
my_dietConstraints_240102.txt
(ex) EX_fuc_L[u] --> EX_fuc__L[u] (BiGG format)
However, I got the following result:
Most of the results were 'Infeasible'. Even more confusing, some pairs used the same diet and got normal results like 'Parasitism' or 'Amensalism', while others got results like 'No_Result'.
I have found the following similar issue, which has not been resolved
: #2009
I also checked to make sure that the exchange functions I put in as dietConstraints in the paired models I used for testing existed for the most part. I found that on average, about 52% of the exchange functions in the dietConstraints are present in the paired model. When I did the same analysis using the AGORA models and the dietConstraints from the tutorial, I found that on average about 60% of the exchange functions in the dietConstraints were also present in the AGORA paired model. The problem didn't seem to be caused by the dietConstraint I modified not being recognized by my paired models.
How can I solve this problem?
I hereby confirm that I have:
(Note: You may replace [ ] with [X] to check the box)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: