Systematizing the different notions of growth‐coupled product synthesis and a single framework for computing corresponding strain designs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A widely used design principle for metabolic engineering of microorganisms aims to introduce interventions that enforce growth-coupled product synthesis such that the product of interest becomes a (mandatory) by-product of growth. However, different variants and partially contradicting notions of growth-coupled production (GCP) exist. Herein, we propose an ontology for the different degrees of GCP and clarify their relationships. Ordered by coupling degree, we distinguish four major classes: potentially, weakly, and directionally growth-coupled production (pGCP, wGCP, dGCP) as well as substrate-uptake coupled production (SUCP). We then extend the framework of Minimal Cut Sets (MCS), previously used to compute dGCP and SUCP strain designs, to allow inclusion of implicit optimality constraints, a feature required to compute pGCP and wGCP designs. This extension closes the gap between MCS-based and bilevel-based strain design approaches and enables computation (and comparison) of designs for all GCP classes within a single framework. By computing GCP strain designs for a range of products, we illustrate the hierarchical relationships between the different coupling degrees. We find that feasibility of coupling is not affected by the chosen GCP degree and that strongest coupling (SUCP) requires often only one or two more interventions than wGCP and dGCP. Finally, we show that the principle of coupling can be generalized to couple product synthesis with other cellular functions than growth, for example, with net ATP formation. This work provides important theoretical results and algorithmic developments and a unified terminology for computational strain design based on GCP.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".