Efficiently gap-filling reaction networks

BMC Bioinformatics

Table 1 Execution time of the FastGapFilling (FGF) algorithm compared with MILP on four incomplete models of E. coli and one incomplete model of yeast alongside the number of suggested reactions

	Time in seconds		Nb of reactions Suggested to be added
Model	MILP	FGF	MILP	FGF
E. coli 1	125	6	1	1
E. coli 2	7,794	16	3	3
E. coli 3	9,729	13	2	3
E. coli 4	>86,400	14	NA	3
Yeast	21,027	14	4	4

All times were rounded to the nearest number of seconds and they included only solver time, excluding the time for preparing the data for the solver. Note: the number of suggested reactions does not constitute an absolute measure of the quality of the solutions, but rather is one indicator of the similarity between the MILP technique and the FastGapFilling algorithm.

ISSN: 1471-2105