Evidence map›Paper›PMID 8279825›Full record

ArticleAntonie van Leeuwenhoek1993

Kinetics of microbial growth with mixtures of carbon sources.

T Egli, U Lendenmann, M Snozzi

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Antonie van Leeuwenhoek, 1993. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

41 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Bacterial iron acquisition byProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. PFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2023
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Scaling and optimal synergy: Two principles determining microbial growth in complex media.Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics · 2015
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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.

T EgliSwiss Federal Institute for Environmental Science and Technology (EAWAG), Dübendorf.
U Lendenmann
M Snozzi

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Several investigations have shown that during growth in carbon-limited chemostats the simultaneous utilisation of carbon substrates which usually provoke diauxie under batch conditions, i.e., 'mixed substrate growth,' is probably the rule under ecologically relevant growth conditions. In contrast, the models presently available for the description of the kinetics of microbial growth are all based on the use of single substrates. Systematic studies in chemostat culture have shown that steady-state residual concentrations of individual compounds were consistently lower during mixed substrate growth than during growth with the single substrates. This effect is clearly demonstrated for the case of Escherichia coli growing with mixtures of glucose plus galactose. The data presented indicate that the extent of reduction of steady-state residual substrate concentration is dependent on the proportions of the substrates in the mixture, the nature of substrates mixed and the regulation pattern of enzymes involved in their breakdown. If this behaviour can be shown to be typical for growth under environmental conditions, it may provide an explanation why microbes still grow relatively fast at the low substrate concentrations encountered in nature.

Indexed as

Carbohydrate MetabolismCarbonCulture MediaEscherichia coliGlucoseKineticsMethanolMitosporic FungiPichiaCarbonCulture MediaGlucoseMethanol

Identifiers

PMID8279825

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.