Cell envelope growth of Gram‐negative bacteria proceeds independently of cell wall synthesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
All bacterial cells must expand their envelopes during growth. The main load-bearing and shape-determining component of the bacterial envelope is the peptidoglycan cell wall. Bacterial envelope growth and shape changes are often thought to be controlled through enzymatic cell wall insertion. We investigated the role of cell wall insertion for cell shape changes during cell elongation in Gram-negative bacteria. We found that both global and local rates of envelope growth of Escherichia coli remain nearly unperturbed upon arrest of cell wall insertion-up to the point of sudden cell lysis. Specifically, cells continue to expand their surface areas in proportion to biomass growth rate, even if the rate of mass growth changes. Other Gram-negative bacteria behave similarly. Furthermore, cells plastically change cell shape in response to differential mechanical forces. Overall, we conclude that cell wall-cleaving enzymes can control envelope growth independently of synthesis. Accordingly, the strong overexpression of an endopeptidase leads to transiently accelerated bacterial cell elongation. Our study demonstrates that biomass growth and envelope forces can guide cell envelope expansion through mechanisms that are independent of cell wall insertion.
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 | 0.000 | 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".