4.6 Review

Do microbes have a memory? History-dependent behavior in the adaptation to variable environments

期刊

FRONTIERS IN MICROBIOLOGY
卷 13, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2022.1004488

关键词

history-dependent behavior; fluctuating environments; epigenetic mechanisms; cellular heterogeneity; Saccharomyces cerevisiae

资金

  1. European Research Council [ERC CoG682009]
  2. FWO, KU Leuven [3E170455]
  3. VIB
  4. KU Leuven [3E170455]
  5. FWO SB Grant [SB/1S07117N]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Microbes need to respond properly to environmental cues for cellular functioning. Past exposure to environmental cues can accelerate the response even in daughter cells. This behavior is mainly epigenetic and is often accompanied by heterogeneity in response between cells of the same population.
Microbes are constantly confronted with changes and challenges in their environment. A proper response to these environmental cues is needed for optimal cellular functioning and fitness. Interestingly, past exposure to environmental cues can accelerate or boost the response when this condition returns, even in daughter cells that have not directly encountered the initial cue. Moreover, this behavior is mostly epigenetic and often goes hand in hand with strong heterogeneity in the strength and speed of the response between isogenic cells of the same population, which might function as a bet-hedging strategy. In this review, we discuss examples of history-dependent behavior (HDB) or memory, with a specific focus on HDB in fluctuating environments. In most examples discussed, the lag time before the response to an environmental change is used as an experimentally measurable proxy for HDB. We highlight different mechanisms already implicated in HDB, and by using HDB in fluctuating carbon conditions as a case study, we showcase how the metabolic state of a cell can be a key determining factor for HDB. Finally, we consider possible evolutionary causes and consequences of such HDB.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据