Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34280182›Full record

ArticlePLoS computational biology2021

The effect of natural selection on the propagation of protein expression noise to bacterial growth.

Laurens H J Krah, Rutger Hermsen

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS computational biology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 38% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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.

Laurens H J KrahTheoretical Biology and Bioinformatics, Department of Biology, University of Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-6879-3962
Rutger HermsenTheoretical Biology and Bioinformatics, Department of Biology, University of Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-4633-4877
Utrecht University · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In bacterial cells, protein expression is a highly stochastic process. Gene expression noise moreover propagates through the cell and adds to fluctuations in the cellular growth rate. A common intuition is that, due to their relatively high noise amplitudes, proteins with a low mean expression level are the most important drivers of fluctuations in physiological variables. In this work, we challenge this intuition by considering the effect of natural selection on noise propagation. Mathematically, the contribution of each protein species to the noise in the growth rate depends on two factors: the noise amplitude of the protein's expression level, and the sensitivity of the growth rate to fluctuations in that protein's concentration. We argue that natural selection, while shaping mean abundances to increase the mean growth rate, also affects cellular sensitivities. In the limit in which cells grow optimally fast, the growth rate becomes most sensitive to fluctuations in highly abundant proteins. This causes abundant proteins to overall contribute strongly to the noise in the growth rate, despite their low noise levels. We further explore this result in an experimental data set of protein abundances, and test key assumptions in an evolving, stochastic toy model of cellular growth.

Indexed as

Models, GeneticSelection, GeneticBacteriaBacterial ProteinsComputational BiologyGene Expression Regulation, BacterialGene Expression Regulation, DevelopmentalMathematical ConceptsSignal-To-Noise RatioStochastic ProcessesBacterial Proteins

Identifiers

PMID34280182
PMCPMC8321134
OpenAlexW3186008338

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.