3 ms·
agreed! a couple things seem to be holding this back: - the academic publishing model incentivizes groups to build their own tools - the small-ish market for
by zaking17 5y ago
agreed! a couple things seem to be holding this back:
- the academic publishing model incentivizes groups to build their own tools
- the small-ish market for something like this has kept commercial software from taking off (Genomatica started by building a tool like this in the early 2000s, before pivoting to bioprocess development)
- it's really hard to specify pathways in concrete physical terms. Even a chemical like glucose is actually a collection of pseudo-isomers (alpha & beta D-glucose). And try firmly defining a "gene" in your database!
that being said, there's a ton of work going on in this field and many cool projects to follow: https://dd-decaf.eu https://dd-decaf.eu, https://biocyc.org https://biocyc.org, http://bigg.ucsd.edu http://bigg.ucsd.edu, http://metanetx.org http://metanetx.org
- joshuamcginnis 5y agoThe database would definitely need to define some boundaries and limitations, but I still think there is much opportunity in coalescing well-defined metabolic and genetic data and empowering folks to generate feasible genetic constructs.
- zaking17 5y agoYou might also want some pathways to be pre-validated to work together in certain cellular contexts, like they have been doing with the BioBricks project
- joshuamcginnis 5y agoAbsolutely. This is probably the best and only way to start.