Extensive Regulation of Metabolism and Growth during the Cell Division Cycle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Yeast cells grown in culture can spontaneously synchronize their respiration, metabolism, gene expression and cell division. Such metabolic oscillations in synchronized cultures reflect single-cell oscillations, but the relationship between the oscillations in single cells and synchronized cultures is poorly understood. To understand this relationship and the coordination between metabolism and cell division, we collected and analyzed DNA-content, gene-expression and physiological data, at hundreds of time-points, from cultures metabolically-synchronized at different growth rates, carbon sources and biomass densities. The data enabled us to extend and generalize our mechanistic model, based on ensemble average over phases (EAP), connecting the population-average geneexpression of asynchronous cultures to the gene-expression dynamics in the single-cells comprising the cultures. The extended model explains the carbon-source specific growth-rate responses of hundreds of genes. Our physiological data demonstrate that the frequency of metabolic cycling in synchronized cultures increases with the biomass density, suggesting that this cycling is an emergent behavior, resulting from the entraining of the single-cell metabolic cycle by a quorum-sensing mechanism, and thus underscoring the difference between metabolic cycling in single cells and in synchronized cultures. Measurements of constant levels of residual glucose across metabolically synchronized cultures indicate that storage carbohydrates are required to fuel not only the G1/S transition of the division cycle but also the metabolic cycle. Despite the large variation in profiled conditions and in the scale of their dynamics, most genes preserve invariant dynamics of coordination with each other and with the rate of oxygen consumption. Similarly, the G1/S transition always occurs at the beginning, middle or end of the high oxygen consumption phases, analogous to observations in human and drosophila cells. These results highlight evolutionary conserved coordination among metabolism, cell growth and division.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".