4.8 Article

Noise-driven growth rate gain in clonal cellular populations

出版社

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1519412113

关键词

growth noise; age-structured population model; cell lineage analysis; growth law; microfluidics

资金

  1. Japan Society for the Promotion of Science KAKENHI [25711008, 15H05746, 13J09314, 14J01376]
  2. Japan Science and Technology Agency Precursory Research for Embryonic Science and Technology Program
  3. NIH [R01-GM-097356]
  4. Platform for Dynamic Approaches to Living System from Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Japan
  5. Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development
  6. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [15KT0075, 14J01376, 15H05746, 25711008, 13J09314] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cellular populations in both nature and the laboratory are composed of phenotypically heterogeneous individuals that compete with each other resulting in complex population dynamics. Predicting population growth characteristics based on knowledge of heterogeneous single-cell dynamics remains challenging. By observing groups of cells for hundreds of generations at single-cell resolution, we reveal that growth noise causes clonal populations of Escherichia coli to double faster than the mean doubling time of their constituent single cells across a broad set of balanced-growth conditions. We show that the population-level growth rate gain as well as age structures of populations and of cell lineages in competition are predictable. Furthermore, we theoretically reveal that the growth rate gain can be linked with the relative entropy of lineage generation time distributions. Unexpectedly, we find an empirical linear relation between the means and the variances of generation times across conditions, which provides a general constraint on maximal growth rates. Together, these results demonstrate a fundamental benefit of noise for population growth, and identify a growth law that sets a speed limit for proliferation.

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

4.8
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