Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2016 Dec 1.
Published in final edited form as: Comput Biol Chem. 2015 Sep 1;59(0 0):98–112. doi: 10.1016/j.compbiolchem.2015.08.002

Table 1.

Performance of FALCON and other CBM methods for predicting yeast exometabolic fluxes in two growth conditions with highly (HC) and minimally (MC) constrained models (a) and associated timing analysis (b). For Lee et al. and FALCON methods, the mean time for a single run of the method is listed; all other methods did not have any stochasticity employed. Values are shown in two significant figures. Method descriptions can be found in Lee et al. 8.

(a) Max. μ Model Experimental Standard FBA Fitted FBA GIMME iMAT Lee et al. FALCON
75 % Yeast 5 MC 1 0.66 0.66 NaN 0.57 0.64 1
75 % Yeast 7 MC 1 0.66 0.66 0.68 0.66 0.66 0.98
75 % Yeast 5 HC 1 0.73 0.78 0.75 0.66 0.98 0.99
Pearson’s r 75 % Yeast 7 HC 1 0.70 0.70 0.80 0.66 0.98 0.99
85 % Yeast 7 MC 1 0.62 0.62 0.65 0.62 0.62 0.97
85 % Yeast 5 HC 1 0.88 0.89 0.9 0.81 0.99 0.99
85 % Yeast 7 HC 1 0.67 0.67 0.87 0.62 0.98 0.98
(b) Max. μ Model Experimental Standard FBA Fitted FBA GIMME iMAT Lee et al. FALCON
75 % Yeast 5 MC 0 0.9 470 0.81 50 110 1.8
75 % Yeast 7 MC 0 1.9 3,100 2.1 12,000 600 5.6
75 % Yeast 5 HC 0 0.12 110 0.18 1.4 15 0.27
Time (s) 75 % Yeast 7 HC 0 0.72 940 1.7 240 670 5.5
85 % Yeast 7 MC 0 2.3 3,100 3.8 14,000 610 4.6
85 % Yeast 5 HC 0 0.12 110 0.18 2.5 15 0.22
85 % Yeast 7 HC 0 0.70 110 2.5 100 530 5.9