Role of Alcohols in Growth, Lipid Composition, and Membrane Fluidity of Yeasts, Bacteria, and Archaea
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Increased membrane fluidity, which causes cofactor leakage and loss of membrane potential, has long been documented as a cause for decreased cell growth during exposure to ethanol, butanol, and other alcohols. Reinforcement of the membrane with more complex lipid components is thus thought to be beneficial for the generation of more tolerant organisms. In this study, organisms with more complex membranes, namely, archaea, did not maintain high growth rates upon exposure to alcohols, indicating that more complex lipids do not necessarily fortify the membrane against the fluidizing effects of alcohols. In the presence of alcohols, shifts in lipid composition to more saturated and unbranched lipids were observed in most of the organisms tested, including archaea, yeasts, and bacteria. However, these shifts did not always result in a decrease in membrane fluidity or in greater tolerance of the organism to alcohol exposure. In general, organisms tolerating the highest concentrations of alcohols maintained membrane fluidity after alcohol exposure, whereas organisms that increased membrane rigidity were less tolerant. Altered lipid composition was a common response to alcohol exposure, with the most tolerant organisms maintaining a modestly fluid membrane. Our results demonstrate that increased membrane fluidity is not the sole cause of growth inhibition and that alcohols may also denature proteins within the membrane and cytosol, adversely affecting metabolism and decreasing cell growth.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".