Critical Reviews in Microbiology is an international, peer-reviewed academic journal that publishes comprehensive review articles covering all areas of medical microbiology. Areas covered by the journal include bacteriology, virology, microbial genetics, epidemiology, and diagnostic microbiology. It is published by Taylor and Francis Group. Instant formatting template for Critical Reviews in Microbiology guidelines. Download formatted paper in docx and LaTeX formats. Find journal impact factor,.
A Publication of the Society of Industrial Microbiology and BiotechnologyObjectives and policy of the journalThe Journal of Industrial Microbiology and Biotechnology is an international journal which publishes papers describing original research, short communications, and critical reviews in the fields of biotechnology, fermentation and cell culture, biocatalysis, environmental microbiology, natural products discovery and biosynthesis, marine natural products, metabolic engineering, genomics, bioinformatics, food microbiology, and other areas of applied microbiology. Submission of a manuscript implies; that the work described has not been published before (except in the form of an abstract or as part of a published lecture, review, or thesis); that it is not under consideration for publication elsewhere; that its publication has been approved by all co-authors, if any, as well as - tacitly or explicitly - by the responsible authorities at the institute where the work was carried out. Transfer of copyright to the Society for Industrial Microbiology becomes effective if and when the article is accepted for publication. The copyright covers the exclusive right and license (for U.S. Government employees: to the extent transferable) to reproduce, publish, distribute and archive the article in all forms and media of expression now known or developed in the future, including reprints, translations, photographic reproductions, microform, electronic form (offline, online) or any other reproductions of similar nature.All articles published in this journal are protected by copyright, which covers the exclusive rights to reproduce and distribute the article (e.g., as offprints), as well as all translation rights. No material published in this journal may be reproduced photographically or stored on microfilm, in electronic data bases, video disks, etc., without first obtaining written permission from the publisher.
The use of general descriptive names, trade names, trademarks, etc., in this publication, even if not specifically identified, does not imply that these names are not protected by the relevant laws and regulations.An author may make an article published by Springer-Verlag available on his/her personal home page, provided the source of the published article is cited and the society is mentioned as the copyright holder. Authors are requested to create a link to the published article in Springer's internet service. The link must be accompanied by following text: 'The original publication is available on SpringerLink at use the appropriate URL and/or DOI for the article. Articles disseminated via SpringerLink are indexed, abstracted and referenced by many abstracting and information services, bibliographic networks, subscription agencies, library networks, and consortia.The author warrants that this contribution is original and that he/she has full power to make this grant.
The author signs for and accepts responsibility for releasing this material on behalf of any and all co-authors.After submission of this agreement signed by the corresponding author, changes of authorship or in the order of the authors listed will not be accepted by Springer-Verlag.While the advice and information in this journal is believed to be true and accurate at the date of its publication, neither the authors, the editors, nor the publisher can accept any legal responsibility for any errors or omissions that may be made. The publisher makes no warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein.Special regulations for photocopies in the USA. Photocopies may be made for personal or in-house use beyond the limitations stipulated under Section 107 or 108 of U.S. Copyright Law, provided a fee is paid. All fees should be paid to the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, USA, Tel.:+1-9, Fax:+1-9, stating the ISSN 1367-5435, the volume, and the first and last page numbers of each article copied.
The copyright owner's consent does not include copying for general distribution, promotion, new works, or resale. In these cases, specific written permission must first be obtained from the publisher.The Canada Institute for Scientific and Technical Information (CISTI) provides a comprehensive, world-wide document delivery service for all Springer-Verlag journals. For more information, or to place an order for a copyright-cleared Springer-Verlag document, please contact Client Assistant, Document Delivery, CISTI, Ottawa K1A OS2, Canada (Tel: +1-613-993-9251; Fax: +1-613-952-8243; e-mail: cisti.docdel@nrc.ca).Springer-Verlag is a part ofSpringer Science+Business Mediaspringer.com© Society for Industrial Microbiology and Biotechnology.
Microbial maintenance is an important concept in microbiology. Its quantification, however, is a subject of continuous debate, which seems to be caused by (1) its definition, which includes nongrowth components other than maintenance; (2) the existence of partly overlapping concepts; (3) the evolution of variables as constants; and (4) the neglect of cell death in microbial dynamics. The two historically most important parameters describing maintenance, the specific maintenance rate and the maintenance coefficient, are based on partly different nongrowth components.
There is thus no constant relation between these parameters and previous equations on this subject are wrong. In addition, the partial overlap between these parameters does not allow the use of a simple combination of these parameters. This also applies for combinations of a threshold concentration with one of the other estimates of maintenance. Maintenance estimates should ideally explicitly describe each nongrowth component. A conceptual model is introduced that describes their relative importance and reconciles the various concepts and definitions. The sensitivity of maintenance on underlying components was analyzed and indicated that overall maintenance depends nonlinearly on relative death rates, relative growth rates, growth yield, and endogenous metabolism.
This quantitative sensitivity analysis explains the felt need to develop growth-dependent adaptations of existing maintenance parameters, and indicates the importance of distinguishing the various nongrowth components. Future experiments should verify the sensitivity of maintenance components under cellular and environmental conditions. IntroductionDescribing microbial dynamics is of great importance for many different applications. Microbial dynamics determines production levels in food industry, waste removal in reactors, pollution cleanup in soils and sediments, as well as the biogeochemical cycles to major extents. Although some kinetic approaches of microbial dynamics do not explicitly account for changes in microbial biomass, a majority of the kinetic descriptions incorporates some measure of microbial growth.
Most microbiologists acknowledge that, apart from microbial growth, some measure of “maintenance” is needed to provide proper descriptions of microbial kinetics. Over the years, maintenance has been quantified in various, partly contradictory, ways. These contradictions are caused by four interrelated issues.The first issue that lies at the heart of matter is the definition of maintenance. Maintenance has been defined as “the energy consumed for functions other than the production of new cell material”. This definition includes all nongrowth components and does not provide insight in its underlying processes, which complicates its general application. The nongrowth components thus included and determined empirically when measuring maintenance are (1) shifts in metabolic pathways, (2) energy spilling reactions, (3) cell motility, (4) changes in stored polymeric carbon, (5) osmoregulation, (6) extracellular losses of compounds not involved in osmoregulation, (7) proofreading, synthesis and, turnover of macromolecular compounds such as enzymes and RNA, and (8) defense against O 2 stress ,. The opinion on which component is the dominant nongrowth component differs from osmoregulation , turnover of macromolecular compounds , , to energy spilling reactions.Second, and even more important, is that not all these nongrowth components are, physiologically speaking, part of maintenance—when maintenance is defined as a basic or endogenous metabolism.
Endogenous metabolism was introduced around the same time as “maintenance,” and the variables were frequently used interchangeably (e.g., ). Physiological maintenance comprises energy costs of osmoregulation, cell motility, defense mechanisms, and proofreading and internal turnover of macromolecular compounds. As indicated previously , physiological maintenance should not include shifts in metabolic pathways, storage of polymers, or extracellular losses. Some of the physiological maintenance components—such as shifts in metabolic pathways—seem to be better in place when corrected for in the cell growth yield, Y G, which was defined as the amount of cell growth per amount of substrate consumed. Physiological maintenance dominates the nongrowth losses of energy under starvation conditions.Third, even though several incomparable nongrowth components were combined into a single variable, maintenance evolved as a biological kinetic constant through time.
Originally, none of the microbial kinetic parameters used up to the present were initiated as constants. The most popular equation used to describe microbial growth, the Monod equation , was introduced as a purely empirical relationship resembling an adsorption isotherm. However, many microbiologists viewed the Monod equation as something that has an inherent meaning. From there, it is a small step to consider the variables involved as constants for the species considered. When measurements of maintenance (e.g., , ) showed deviations from a constant maintenance, the concept itself was not questioned, but an additional growth-rate-dependent maintenance parameter was introduced.
Similar evolution occurred with growth yield Y G and the energy yield ( Y ATP) , which was introduced based on a correlation between biomass production and ATP availability. These were subsequently “proven” to be constants (e.g., ), whereas Stouthamer et al. concluded that Y G is not a biological constant, based on measured shifts in metabolic pathways.The fourth issue arises from the fact that cell death is hardly considered in microbial dynamics. Flux measurements do not distinguish cell death from intracellular turnover. Although Herbert described maintenance as similar to a negative relative growth rate, only some applied models (see, e.g.for a review) consider it as a “relative death rate.” Explicit inclusion of death and lysis can have serious implications for the interpretation of maintenance effects.These four issues have led to several inconsistencies in the quantification of “maintenance” and in equations describing microbial kinetics in general. The aim of this article is to describe the various measures of maintenance, to show the apparent relationship between the different measures and to quantify the dynamics of maintenance when distinguishing the various components included in maintenance to increase the understanding, description, and prediction of microbial dynamics.
2in which x denotes microbial biomass (in g C x m −3), μ is the true specific growth rate (in s −1) , a is the specific maintenance rate (in s −1), S is the energy supplying substrate (in g C s m −3), and Y app is the apparent yield coefficient (in g C x g −1 C s). Y app describes the gross partitioning of elements over cell biomass and extracellular products. It is important to distinguish Y app from Y G, which is the yield coefficient corrected for maintenance.
In other words, Y G considers only consumption of substrate for growth purposes (in g C x g −1 C s). Given the correction for maintenance, Y G is supposed to be higher and less variable with S than Y app. VanUden applied Eq.
with Y G instead of Y app. Consequently, his equations relating a to Y G are incorrect.As shown in Eq.
, the definition of specific maintenance rate is completely analogous to the definition of μ. Maintenance a is an imaginative decay rate to account for a diversion of substrate flux from growth, but does not necessarily lead to additional losses of substrate. In fact, a includes osmoregulation, extracellular losses and turnover terms, and neglects the occurrence of the other nongrowth components listed in the. Given its mathematical definition, a also includes relative death rates when a is determined experimentally from biomass and compound balances, e.g., in chemostat experiments. Estimates derived for either a or relative death rates thus overlap, and researchers should avoid applying both simultaneously in a kinetic model (as done in ).
It also implies that a includes nongrowth components other than physiological maintenance, whereas some physiological maintenance processes are not incorporated. More complicated models are needed to estimate real physiological maintenance rates.The general definition given above does not imply that a is a constant.
However, the empirical relation developed to estimate a treated a as a constant. 3in which x max was incorrectly assumed to be a constant maximum microbial biomass (in g C x m −3). Still, most models that apply a treat it as a constant (see, e.g., ), although a constant a does not explain the persistence of microbial communities under low nutrient conditions. Moreover, experimentally derived values for a, assuming its constancy, for different microbial species shows a significant correlation with its μ max value ( P. 5in which K r is a saturation constant (in g C sm −3), analogous to Michaelis-Menten constant and the Monod saturation constant, and is the equilibrium substrate concentration (in g C sm −3). Next to the theoretical foundation of this equation, the parameter estimation of K r is especially problematic. More complex models determining a( S) such as inverse Monod relations , exponential functions relating a to internal microbial substrate concentrations , and multiple compartment models (e.g., ) have similar problems.
6in which q is the specific substrate consumption rate (in g C s g −1 C x s −1), used for growth and for maintenance. In this approach, maintenance thus denotes extra substrate consumption not used for growth purposes. In this approach, no biomass losses are possible, which is conceptually unattractive and which in fact assumes μ to be the net relative growth rate. This leads to substrate consumption while substrate concentrations are zero. Defined in this way, m neglects the extracellular losses, osmoregulation, and turnover of macromolecular compounds listed for maintenance in the. It is also questionable whether shifts in metabolic pathways or storage of products are included.In its original definition, the maintenance coefficient was considered constant for a species and has been used as such in numerous models describing microbial dynamics (e.g., ). However, in analogy to the understanding that a depended on growth conditions, it was found that the maintenance coefficient depended on μ ,.
Therefore, on the assumption that the maintenance coefficient includes a portion that decreases with increasing μ, Pirt postulated a modification to Eq. 7in which m c denotes the constant maintenance coefficient (in g C s g −1 C x s −1) and m v(1 − μ/ μ max) denotes the growth rate dependent maintenance coefficient (in g C s g −1 C x s −1). Equation incorrectly assumes that maintenance is only a function of time and biomass.
Indeed, these mathematical constants are not biological constants, but both may vary with μ. Accordingly, Pirt concluded that Eq. is not valid at very low μ and attributed this to the formation of dormant cells.
9which is only equal to m= a/ Y G (which is the equation between m and a that was derived by Schulze and Lipe and later on applied by Pirt ) if Y app= Y G. It follows from Eqs. and that this only happens to be true if maintenance is absent—or, in other words, if m Eq. is zero or, following the alternative approach, if a Eq. The differences between the results obtained by Eq. and the one from can be substantial, especially if maintenance is large (Fig. ). The errors made in previous reports on this subject thus may be considerable.
Within each separate analysis, the empirical equations developed to estimate a separate maintenance parameter still hold true. Comparison between the relationship between maintenance coefficient m and specific maintenance rate a calculated according to Eq. and the original equation in Pirt for various μ values with Y G=0.6 g C x g −1 C s.Equation implies that there is no constant relation between the two parameters describing maintenance (Fig. ), because Y app depends on μ if maintenance occurs. Without sophisticated experimental tools, it is impossible to tell which parameter is nonconstant, because the two approaches on maintenance address partly the same and partly different nongrowth components and even cell death, whereas shifts in metabolic pathways are neglected by both approaches. For each component, the contribution to overall nongrowth losses may shift both in absolute and in relative terms with growth conditions.
Therefore, the two ways of describing “maintenance” should be seen as two independent measures approaching a complex phenomenon from different directions. Combining empirical parameter estimates from both approaches in one model (as done frequently, e.g., ) should thus be done with great reservation and care. In reality, it is highly probable that given the different components combined in “maintenance,” partial losses occur in both biomass and in consumption. This will be extended and quantified below.Only a few studies tried to separate the maintenance estimators. Servais et al.
quantified the relative release rate of label that had been incorporated into DNA as a relative death rate or specific maintenance rate ( sensu ) assuming that DNA is not subject to maintenance ( sensu ). Servais et al. also showed that the temperature dependence of this specific maintenance rate was slightly less than generally found for relative growth rates. Maintenance as a Minimum Substrate ConcentrationFinally, some authors (e.g., ) introduced a minimum substrate concentration ( S min) above which growth occurs, instead of explicitly accounting for maintenance and/or death. Sometimes, S min was linked to the occurrence of reverse enzymatic reactions.
Below S min, it is usually assumed that growth is zero although it would be more correct to consider growth negative at concentrations lower than S min. In fact, the introduction of S min shifts the μ– S curve horizontally, where introducing a shifts the μ– S curve vertically (Fig. ). Both parameters can be easily converted into each other. By definition, S= S min if d x/d t=0. Assuming Monod kinetics, then. A Conceptual ModelIdeally, a maintenance description should distinguish physiological maintenance from other nongrowth components and incorporate the dynamics of each component. Unfortunately, experimental data on the contribution of individual nongrowth components—let alone information on changes in contributions as a function of growth conditions—are scarce.
introduced a maintenance model that was based on death and cell lysis. Lysis was incorporated in decreased Y values. Unfortunately, their four compartments (active cells, nonviable active cells, dead cells, and extracellular products) are hard to distinguish, as indicated by the same authors, and led to numerous unknown kinetic parameters that had to be fitted. Beeftink et al. also derived kinetic equations by accounting for death and maintenance separately. However, their critical assumptions on constant total maintenance energy and the applied modulation between decay and maintenance-associated catabolism are questionable given the variability in maintenance requirements.In this section, an analysis is introduced that builds upon existing formulations and that separates the individual nongrowth components to the extent allowed by the limited experimental data.
To allow application in kinetic studies, the conceptual model contains a minimum number of parameters that may be estimated from kinetic studies. Moreover, only single species cultures are considered. Microbial physiological processes were simplified and lumped using existing formulations as long as these did not contradict first principles. Present experimental data do not justify further specification.
The conceptual model is by no means quantitatively correct, but allows us to analyze the sensitivity of microbial dynamics to various nongrowth components and may be refined when experimental data become available.The first step to separate physiological maintenance from other nongrowth components is by dividing the total microbial biomass into two fractions, an inactive dormant fraction (subscript i) and a reactive fraction (subscript r). Inactive fractions may occur in a different compartment within active cells or outside active cells. The inactive biomass fraction may thus be “passively” dormant like spores or resting microbes (as differentiated by ), or “actively” dormant like less reactive individual cells or energy storage products within vacuoles such as polyglucose, glycogen, or polyhydroxybutyrate. This biomass distinction follows earlier theories on maintenance quantification ,. Further specification of the inactive fraction is not necessary as long as a quasi steady state is assumed—a restriction that concerns most theoretical descriptions developed so far. This allows us to separate the effects of storage of polymeric carbon from other nongrowth components.
11Experiments have shown a partitioning of biomass between reactive and inactive fractions as a function of growth conditions (e.g., , ). Unfortunately, there is a lack of quantitative data that describe this partitioning, e.g., as a function of substrate concentrations, although it is generally acknowledged that in most environments a significant proportion of the microbial community is in the “inactive state” (e.g., ). Therefore, an approach similar to those in earlier theoretical descriptions is applied that takes the relative activity proportional to the true relative growth rate μ.
12This postulation is in line with , and in accordance with a great body of experimental evidence. Cell-size dynamics does not need to be considered in this approach, and growth is simply a biomass increment independent of whether this leads to bigger cells or splitting cells.The inactive fraction has no participation in growth or permanent biomass losses such as excretion and death, because first x i has to be converted into active metabolic biomass before such changes may occur. Under quasi steady state conditions, x i dynamics does thus not have to be considered.
15aMost physiological maintenance requirements, i.e., energy related to osmoregulation, cell motility, proofreading and internal turnover of macromolecular compounds, and defense mechanisms, are related to cell activity. The energy needed for physiological maintenance will consequently, as a first-order approach, be proportional to growth. Therefore, physiological maintenance is assumed to be a fraction of active biomass increment by growth. Incorporation of physiological maintenance thus leads to. 15bin which m p denotes the substrate consumption for physiological maintenance per biomass increment (in g C s g −1 C x).
Treating m p as a variable instead of a constant also allows the incorporation of energy spilling reactions into m p, given that active transport of protons over membranes is considered the most important energy spilling reaction.Most theoretical approaches assume that Y G is constant for a given substrate S. However, this is not appropriate if shifts in metabolic pathways occur. Varying Y G as a function of growth conditions would thus quantify the last nongrowth component. Unfortunately, there are no experimental data that allow general quantification of this variation in Y G. Relating the Conceptual Model to Maintenance ParametersThe described conceptual model explicitly incorporates all nongrowth terms listed in the: d allows for excretion, leakage, and cell death; x i allows for storage and growth-dependent activities; and m p for the various physiological maintenance processes, and the variation in Y G allows for shifts in metabolic pathways. It allows the quantification of nongrowth components as a function of growth conditions and can be related to existing maintenance parameters:The specific maintenance rate a incorporates the same maintenance components as d, and can be calculated from d combining Eqs.
and. 17explicitly indicating the influence of energy spilling reactions, through a nonconstant m p, and the effects of storage on m. This agrees with the postulation of Pirt that a growth-dependent maintenance may be related to the dynamics of energy storage products. also shows that shifts in metabolic pathways are not included in m, given that variation in Y G is not accounted for in either Eq. or Schulz and Lipe.All nongrowth components can be combined in one overall maintenance coefficient ( m tot in g C s g −1 C x s −1)—which equals the maintenance estimated in experiments—by applying Eq.
, estimating a from Eqs. and and estimating Y app from Eqs. and. Sensitivity Analysis of the Conceptual ModelEquation clearly shows that m tot is not a constant, but rather a nonlinear dynamic function of all variables involved, which is in line with a similar postulation in. Unfortunately, no experimental data are available on the individual nongrowth variables, and even the lumped parameters m p and d can only be estimated indirectly from Eqs. Therefore, Eq.
has not been applied to provide the quantitative estimates of m tot. Instead, sensitivity analyses were carried out to determine the potential sensitivity of the various nongrowth components and the potential variability of m tot with growth conditions. was used to calculate the relative sensitivity of the dynamics in m tot as a function of m p, d, μ r, and Y G assuming that μ max is a species characteristic and hence constant. The analytical solutions for these sensitivities are. 19dEquations (-) emphasize the nonlinear dependence of m tot upon the underlying variables, particularly upon d and μ r.
Next, a numerical sensitivity analysis was carried out, calculating m tot for various combinations of m p, d, μ r, and Y G while each parameter was varied independently of each other. The results of this sensitivity analysis (Fig. ) confirmed that both absolute and relative variations in m tot mainly depended on d and μ r. At all combinations of m p and Y G, m tot was low at low d and μ r and tilted toward high values at combinations of high values of these parameters. Increases in m p reinforced and increases in Y G decreased these tilting patterns. The small changes in m tot with Y G indicate that the effects of shifts in metabolic pathways are relatively minor (but attributed to physiological maintenance if it would be assumed that Y G is constant). Maintenance EstimatorsThe above analysis of “maintenance” estimators shows that there is no simple solution to reconcile the different approaches and terminologies. First, the analysis underlines the importance of distinguishing and explicitly describing and quantifying the various components of maintenance to understand its dynamics and the differences between maintenance estimates.
Critical Reviews In Microbiology Journal
This was hardly done in the past. The conceptual model—based on common sense microbiological assumptions such as inactive vs reactive fractions and Monod kinetics, simplified to apply to quasi steady states only—incorporated all nongrowth components and showed that maintenance is a dynamic process that depends nonlinearly on relative death rates, relative growth rates, physiological maintenance, and growth yield. The first two variables dominated the variability in the overall maintenance. This is not to say that physiological maintenance is unimportant, because part of the sensitivity of m p on overall maintenance goes through μ r, see Eq. The dominance of μ on m tot variability led to an almost linear dependence and was mainly due to the mechanistic distinction between an inactive and an active microbial fraction. Similar linear relationships between μ and maintenance have been incorporated in empirical formulations (e.g., , ).This is not meant to indicate that the presented conceptual model is quantitatively correct, but it considers and quantifies all nongrowth components and is, contrary to earlier descriptions on maintenance, internally consistent in the sense that it avoids combinations of contrasting descriptions of maintenance. In its present form, the conceptual model is highly helpful as it provides estimates on the sensitivity of maintenance on the underlying components and shows maintenance dynamics.
These characteristics may make the approach attractive as a point of departure to develop and validate mechanistic models on maintenance.Second, the analysis made clear that the difference between physiological maintenance (or endogenous metabolism sensu ) and other nongrowth conditions is crucial. Explicit consideration of this difference in models would greatly improve our understanding of the phenomenon, whereas neglect of this factor has led to many misunderstandings on the quantification of maintenance and its dynamics as a function of growth conditions.Third, the analysis pinpointed inconsistencies in current formulations of maintenance, i.e., the specific maintenance rate and the maintenance coefficient. These variables are principally incompatible and there is no constant relation between the two.
Schulze and Lipe's derived relationship between the two, which was applied by others later on, is incorrect. Comprehension and correct use of these differences is crucial to correctly describe maintenance.Finally, an important illustrated aspect of microbial dynamics is the variability in kinetic macroscopic “constants” with growth conditions as shown for the overall maintenance coefficient. Moreover, the analysis showed how the dynamics of Y G is intermingled with maintenance. This problem is more general than discussed above, because Y G is derived empirically as the maximum yield after correcting for maintenance according to a presupposed formulation on the variation of maintenance with cultivation conditions. By this procedure, Y G becomes by definition a constant, whose value depends on the chosen formulation for maintenance. This variability in kinetic parameters and its separation needs reevaluation.All results outlined above were obtained from macroscopic microbial features. It should be noted, however, that the conclusions do not change when considering energy balances instead, i.e., when applying Y ATP and m E as yield and maintenance coefficients (e.g., , ) instead of Y G and m.
The equations to calculate m E are fully analogous to Eq. , with the same conceptual problems and assumptions of constancy. Moreover, similar to Y G, Y ATP is not constant even when considering maintenance.
Implications for Microbial EcologyMany microbial ecologists have a clear concept on the processes entangled in physiological maintenance or endogenous metabolism, but this is not what is measured empirically. The introduced conceptual model has quantified how physiological maintenance in concert with other nongrowth components determines empirical maintenance estimates. This conceptual model also provides possible explanations for the wide variety of maintenance estimates among microorganisms. The most sensitive variable was the estimate of relative death rates, which was taken independent of growth conditions although that is a major simplification.
A decrease in relative death rates with relative growth rate, as found experimentally , leads to even stronger nonlinearities in m tot with growth conditions. Surprisingly, estimates of m tot were relatively insensitive to variation in physiological maintenance, which might imply that this is relatively unimportant in explaining the variety in m tot among microorganisms. The variability in m tot and its nonlinearity needs to be considered by experimental microbial ecologists and should lead to adjustments in the equations used to describe microbial dynamics.Apart from explanations of measured maintenance dynamics, the conceptual model also shows the need for experimental data on the contribution of the various nongrowth components, a need felt already by Pirt.
Microbiology Research Articles
The presented model may be used to validate—components of—maintenance. Attempts to quantify physiological maintenance costs already exist , and may be integrated with measurements on the dynamics of relative death rates, e.g., through the application of flow cytometry. If, in addition, future experimental studies would make a stringent separation of effects on Y G and physiological effects on maintenance, then the contribution of physiological maintenance costs, growth yield dynamics, and losses of biomass on m tot with changing growth conditions may be quantified.
This would validate and improve the presented conceptual model and would strongly improve our knowledge on maintenance and nongrowth components in general.In conclusion, the general definition of maintenance has led to a partly independent development of several maintenance estimators. Each maintenance parameter approaches the phenomenon from a different perspective and is thus fundamentally different. Previous attempts to relate the parameters are incorrect. The review of studies on maintenance showed that, although they started initially as constants, growth-dependent adaptations of maintenance variables were developed over time. A conceptual model that explicitly described the various nongrowth components also showed a strong dependence of overall maintenance on the relative growth rate. Apart from relative growth rates, overall maintenance depended in a nonlinear way on the combination of relative death rates, physiological maintenance, and growth yield. This analysis emphasizes that the components underlying maintenance should be considered and distinguished explicitly.
Future experiments should verify the sensitivities of maintenance on the actual cellular and external environmental conditions.