Skip to main content

Table 1 Our MILP approach (sasita) versus the combinatorial one

From: Enumeration of minimal stoichiometric precursor sets in metabolic networks

Strain #Compounds/#reactions #Sources/#targets \(t_{sasita}\) (s) \(t_{Combi}\) (s)
S. muelleri 76/64 9/Pyruvate <1 <1
C. ruddii 128/126 45/Pyruvate <1 1
B. aphidicola 282/245 91/l-Histidine 2 2
E. coli corea 72/126 14/Biomass core <1 42
E. coli core 78/126 14/Biomass core <1 *
E. coli CFT073 1911/2949 26/Biomass core 12 *
E. coli EDL993 1895/2943 25/Biomass core 13 *
E. coli K-12 1806/2854 25/Biomass core 12 *
E. coli Sakai 1895/2942 25/Biomass core 12 *
  1. a Filtered network (see text). The MILP approach (sasita) and the combinatorial one (combi) are applied to several metabolic networks. For each instance, we provide the size of the network (number of compounds and reactions), the number of source and target compounds, and the time spent by both approaches (\(t_{sasita},\ t_{Combi}\)). One asterisk means that the combinatorial approach could not finish within the time limit