ArticlePLoS computational biology2024
Plasticity of growth laws tunes resource allocation strategies in bacteria.
Article in PLoS computational biology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Bacterial growth rate in populations and single cells.Nature microbiology · 2026Review
- On the conditions for shifts in metabolic strategies.PLoS computational biology · 2026Review
- Systematic modulation of bacterial resource allocation by perturbing RNA polymerase availability via synthetic transcriptional switches.Nucleic acids research · 2025Article
- A framework for understanding collective microbiome metabolism.Nature microbiology · 2024Review
- Plasmid-encoded phosphatase RapP enhances cell growth in non-domesticated Bacillus subtilis strains.Nature communications · 2024Article
- Evolution and stability of complex microbial communities driven by trade-offs.Molecular systems biology · 2024Review
- Shaping of microbial phenotypes by trade-offs.Nature communications · 2024Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Bacteria like E. coli grow at vastly different rates on different substrates, however, the precise reason for this variability is poorly understood. Different growth rates have been attributed to 'nutrient quality', a key parameter in bacterial growth laws. However, it remains unclear to what extent nutrient quality is rooted in fundamental biochemical constraints like the energy content of nutrients, the protein cost required for their uptake and catabolism, or the capacity of the plasma membrane for nutrient transporters. Here, we show that while nutrient quality is indeed reflected in protein investment in substrate-specific transporters and enzymes, this is not a fundamental limitation on growth rate, at least for certain 'poor' substrates. We show that it is possible to turn mannose, one of the 'poorest' substrates of E. coli, into one of the 'best' substrates by reengineering chromosomal promoters of the mannose transporter and metabolic enzymes required for mannose degradation. This result falls in line with previous observations of more subtle growth rate improvement for many other carbon sources. However, we show that this faster growth rate comes at the cost of diverse cellular capabilities, reflected in longer lag phases, worse starvation survival and lower motility. We show that addition of cAMP to the medium can rescue these phenotypes but imposes a corresponding growth cost. Based on these data, we propose that nutrient quality is largely a self-determined, plastic property that can be modulated by the fraction of proteomic resources devoted to a specific substrate in the much larger proteome sector of catabolically activated genes. Rather than a fundamental biochemical limitation, nutrient quality reflects resource allocation decisions that are shaped by evolution in specific ecological niches and can be quickly adapted if necessary.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.