The role of cell-envelope synthesis for envelope growth and cytoplasmic density in <i>Bacillus subtilis</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract All cells must increase their volumes in response to biomass growth to maintain intracellular mass density within physiologically permissive bounds. Here, we investigate the regulation of volume growth in the Gram-positive bacterium Bacillus subtilis. To increase volume, bacteria enzymatically expand their cell envelopes and insert new envelope material. First, we demonstrate that cell-volume growth is determined indirectly, by expanding their envelopes in proportion to mass growth, similarly to the Gram-negative Escherichia coli, despite their fundamentally different envelope structures. Next, we studied, which pathways might be responsible for robust surface-to-mass coupling: We found that both peptidoglycan synthesis and membrane synthesis are required for proper surface-to-mass coupling. However, surprisingly, neither pathway is solely rate-limiting, contrary to wide-spread belief, since envelope growth continues at a reduced rate upon complete inhibition of either process. To arrest cell-envelope growth completely, the simultaneous inhibition of both envelope-synthesis processes is required. Thus, we suggest that multiple envelope-synthesis pathways collectively confer an important aspect of volume regulation, the coordination between surface growth, and biomass 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".