Ribosome Composition Maximizes Cellular Growth Rates in <i>E. coli</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bacterial ribosomes are composed of one-third protein and two-thirds RNA by mass. The predominance of RNA is often attributed to a primordial RNA world, but why exactly two-thirds remains a long-standing mystery. Here we present a quantitative analysis, based on the kinetics of ribosome self-replication, demonstrating that the 1∶2 protein-to-RNA mass ratio uniquely maximizes cellular growth rates in E. coli. A previously unrecognized growth law, and an invariant of bacterial growth, also follow from our analysis. The growth law reveals that the ratio between the number of ribosomes and the number of polymerases making ribosomal RNA is proportional to the cellular doubling time. The invariant is conserved across growth conditions and specifies how key microscopic parameters in the cell, such as transcription and translation rates, are coupled to cellular physiology. Quantitative predictions from the growth law and invariant are shown to be in excellent agreement with E. coli data despite having no fitting parameters. Our analysis can be readily extended to other bacteria once data become available.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".