-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 317
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in 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, |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in 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: