Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29776341›Full record

ArticleBMC evolutionary biology2018

Different adaptive strategies in E. coli populations evolving under macronutrient limitation and metal ion limitation.

Omar M Warsi, Dan I Andersson, Daniel E Dykhuizen

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC evolutionary biology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Journal of bacteriology · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Omar M WarsiDepartment of Ecology and Evolution, Stony Brook University, 650 Life Sciences Building, Stony Brook, NY, 11794, USA. omar.warsi@imbim.uu.se.
Dan I AnderssonDepartment of Medical Biochemistry and Microbiology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Daniel E DykhuizenDepartment of Ecology and Evolution, Stony Brook University, 650 Life Sciences Building, Stony Brook, NY, 11794, USA.
Stony Brook University · USUppsala University · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAdaptive responses to nutrient limitation involve mutations that increase the efficiency of usage or uptake of the limiting nutrient. However, starvation of different nutrients has contrasting effects on physiology, resulting in different evolutionary responses. Most studies performed to understand these evolutionary responses have focused only on macronutrient limitation. Hence our understanding of adaptation under limitation of other forms of nutrients is limited. In this study, we compared the evolutionary response in populations evolving under growth-limiting conditions for a macronutrient and a major cation.

resultsWe evolved eight populations of E. coli in nutrient-limited chemostats for 400 generations to identify the genetic basis of the mechanisms involved in efficient usage of two nutrients: nitrogen and magnesium. Our population genomic sequencing work, based on this study and previous work, allowed us to identify targets of selection under these nutrient limiting conditions. Global transcriptional regulators glnGL were targets of selection under nitrogen starvation, while proteins involved in outer-membrane biogenesis (genes from the lpt operon) were targets of selection under magnesium starvation. The protein involved in cell-cycle arrest (yhaV) was a target of selection in both environments. We re-constructed specific mutants to analyze the effect of individual mutations on fitness in nutrient limiting conditions in chemostats and in batch cultures. We further demonstrated that adaptation to nitrogen starvation proceeds via a nutrient specific mechanism, while that to magnesium starvation involves a more general mechanism.

conclusionsOur results show two different forms of adaptive strategies under limitation of nutrients that effect cellular physiology in different ways. Adaptation to nitrogen starvation proceeds by upregulation of transcriptional regulator glnG and subsequently of transporter protein amtB, both of which results in increased nitrogen scavenging ability of the cell. On the other hand, adaptation to magnesium starvation proceeds via the restructuring of the cell outer-membrane, allowing magnesium to be redistributed to other biological processes. Also, adaptation to the chemostat environment involves selection for loss of function mutations in genes that under nutrient-limiting conditions interfere with continuous growth.

Indexed as

Adaptation, PhysiologicalAllelesBacterial ToxinsBase SequenceBiological EvolutionDNA Transposable ElementsEscherichia coliEscherichia coli ProteinsGenes, BacterialGenetic FitnessGenome, BacterialHydrophobic and Hydrophilic InteractionsIonsLipopolysaccharidesLoss of Function MutationMagnesiumBacterial ToxinsDNA Transposable ElementsEscherichia coli ProteinsIonsLipopolysaccharidesMagnesiumMetalsNitrogenyhaV protein, E coliExperimental evolutionLow nutrient environmentMagnesium limitationNitrogen limitation

Identifiers

PMID29776341
PMCPMC5960147
OpenAlexW2805169093

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.