MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3187191703 · doi:10.1073/pnas.2021416118

Robust surface-to-mass coupling and turgor-dependent cell width determine bacterial dry-mass density

2021· article· en· W3187191703 on OpenAlexaff
Enno R. Oldewurtel, Yuki Kitahara, Sven van Teeffelen

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicDigital Holography and Microscopy
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersAgence Nationale de la Recherche
KeywordsTurgor pressureDry weightChemistryCaulobacter crescentusBiomass (ecology)BiophysicsBiologyCellBiochemistryEcologyBotanyCell cycle

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

with improved precision and accuracy. We found that cells control dry-mass density indirectly by expanding their surface, rather than volume, in direct proportion to biomass growth-according to an empirical surface growth law. At the same time, cell width is controlled independently. Therefore, cellular dry-mass density varies systematically with cell shape, both during the cell cycle or after nutrient shifts, while the surface-to-mass ratio remains nearly constant on the generation time scale. Transient deviations from constancy during nutrient shifts can be reconciled with turgor-pressure variations and the resulting elastic changes in surface area. Finally, we find that plastic changes of cell width after nutrient shifts are likely driven by turgor variations, demonstrating an important regulatory role of mechanical forces for width regulation. In conclusion, turgor-dependent cell width and a slowly varying surface-to-mass coupling constant are the independent variables that determine dry-mass density.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.232 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations91
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the National Academy of SciencesSame topicDigital Holography and MicroscopyFrench-language works237,207