Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30011316›Full record

ArticlePloS one2018

Is the golden ratio a universal constant for self-replication?

Yu Liu, David J T Sumpter

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Yu LiuDepartment of Mathematics, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0003-2640-6490
David J T SumpterDepartment of Mathematics, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Uppsala University · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The golden ratio, ϕ = 1.61803…, has often been found in connection with biological phenomena, ranging from spirals in sunflowers to gene frequency. One example where the golden ratio often arises is in self-replication, having its mathematical origins in Fibonacci's sequence for "rabbit reproduction". Recently, it has been claimed that ϕ determines the ratio between the number of different nucleobases in human genome. Such empirical examples continue to give credence to the idea that the golden ratio is a universal constant, not only in mathematics but also for biology. In this paper, we employ a general framework for chemically realistic self-replicating reaction systems and investigate whether the ratio of chemical species population follows "universal constants". We find that many self-replicating systems can be characterised by an algebraic number, which, in some cases, is the golden ratio. However, many other algebraic numbers arise from these systems, and some of them-such as [Formula: see text] and 1.22074… which is also known as the 3rd lower golden ratio-arise more frequently in self-replicating systems than the golden ratio. The "universal constants" in these systems arise as roots of a limited number of distinct characteristic equations. In addition, these "universal constants" are transient behaviours of self-replicating systems, corresponding to the scenario that the resource inside the system is infinite, which is not always the case in practice. Therefore, we argue that the golden ratio should not be considered as a special universal constant in self-replicating systems, and that the ratios between different chemical species only go to certain numbers under some idealised scenarios.

Indexed as

Models, Theoretical

Identifiers

PMID30011316
PMCPMC6047800
OpenAlexW2884986451

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.