4.7 Review

The functional basis of adaptive evolution in chemostats

期刊

FEMS MICROBIOLOGY REVIEWS
卷 39, 期 1, 页码 2-16

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1111/1574-6976.12082

关键词

nutrient limitation; selection; copy number variation; chemostats; cell growth; adaptive evolution

资金

  1. National Science Foundation of the USA [MCB-1244219]
  2. National Institute of Health [GM107466]
  3. Dupont Corporation Young Professor Award
  4. Div Of Molecular and Cellular Bioscience
  5. Direct For Biological Sciences [1244219] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Two of the central problems in biology are determining the molecular basis of adaptive evolution and understanding how cells regulate their growth. The chemostat is a device for culturing cells that provides great utility in tackling both of these problems: it enables precise control of the selective pressure under which organisms evolve and it facilitates experimental control of cell growth rate. The aim of this review is to synthesize results from studies of the functional basis of adaptive evolution in long-term chemostat selections using Escherichia coli and Saccharomyces cerevisiae. We describe the principle of the chemostat, provide a summary of studies of experimental evolution in chemostats, and use these studies to assess our current understanding of selection in the chemostat. Functional studies of adaptive evolution in chemostats provide a unique means of interrogating the genetic networks that control cell growth, which complements functional genomic approaches and quantitative trait loci (QTL) mapping in natural populations. An integrated approach to the study of adaptive evolution that accounts for both molecular function and evolutionary processes is critical to advancing our understanding of evolution. By renewing efforts to integrate these two research programs, experimental evolution in chemostats is ideally suited to extending the functional synthesis to the study of genetic networks.

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

4.7
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