4.2 Article

Modeling the cost and benefit of proteome regulation in a growing bacterial cell

期刊

PHYSICAL BIOLOGY
卷 15, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/1478-3975/aabe43

关键词

cost-benefit analysis; regulation; time-varying environments; optimal resource allocation; bacterial growth laws; cell dynamics; niche boundary

资金

  1. University Grants Commission
  2. Department of Biotechnology, Government of India [BT/COE/34/SP15246/2015]
  3. Research and Development grant from the University of Delhi

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Escherichia coli cells differentially regulate the production of metabolic and ribosomal proteins in order to stay close to an optimal growth rate in different environments, and exhibit the bacterial growth laws as a consequence. We present a simple mathematical model of a growing-dividing cell in which an internal dynamical mechanism regulates the allocation of proteomic resources between different protein sectors. The model allows an endogenous determination of the growth rate of the cell as a function of cellular and environmental parameters, and reproduces the bacterial growth laws. We use the model and its variants to study the balance between the cost and benefit of regulation. A cost is incurred because cellular resources are diverted to produce the regulatory apparatus. We show that there is a window of environments or a 'niche' in which the unregulated cell has a higher fitness than the regulated cell. Outside this niche there is a large space of constant and time varying environments in which regulation is an advantage. A knowledge of the 'niche boundaries' allows one to gain an intuitive understanding of the class of environments in which regulation is an advantage for the organism and which would therefore favour the evolution of regulation. The model allows us to determine the 'niche boundaries' as a function of cellular parameters such as the size of the burden of the regulatory apparatus. This class of models may be useful in elucidating

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

4.2
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