A mechanistic model of disjunctive metabolic symbioses in microbes

Matthias M. Fischer

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 32 references

A mechanistic model of disjunctive metabolic symbioses in microbes

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that a mechanistic five-equation chemostat model of reciprocal microbial cross-feeding produces a stable coexistence equilibrium across wide trait asymmetries, and that the species interaction shifts continuously from…

desk verdict The model formulation is sensible, but the numerical tables that carry the main claims are internally inconsistent with the paper's own equations. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.02316 v1 pith:NWJBB6VN submitted 2019-08-06 q-bio.PE

Matthias M. Fischer This is my paper · ORCID

classification q-bio.PE

keywords disjunctivesymbiosissyntrophycross-feedingchemostatmechanisticmathematicalmodelMonodkineticssymbioticspectrummetabolicinterdependence

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper proposes a mechanistic mathematical model of disjunctive microbial syntrophy--two species that each live on a metabolite released by the other--as five coupled differential equations for the chemostat: two population densities, one shared limiting resource, and the two exchanged metabolites. All parameters are intended to be directly measurable biological quantities, such as growth rates, Monod constants, and cellular efflux and yield factors, rather than fitted phenomenological coefficients. Using this model, the author argues that the symbiotic equilibrium is stable across wide trait differences: it persists when the symbionts differ strongly in intrinsic growth rate, efflux rate, metabolite requirement, or substrate affinity. The model's central result is that the interaction type is environmentally tunable--increasing the external concentration of one exchanged metabolite pushes the same species pair continuously from obligate mutualism through commensalism to parasitism, with the availability of the shared resource modulating where that transition occurs.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the five-dimensional system (Eqs. 2.2-2.4) for population densities $N_1,N_2$, the shared resource $R$, and the two exchanged metabolites $M_1,M_2$. Effective growth rates are products of two Monod terms, one for the partner-supplied metabolite and one for the limited resource. The steady-state analysis uses $\beta_1=\beta_2=\omega$ at equilibrium, yielding algebraic equations (4.3-4.5) that link equilibrium metabolite levels and population densities; stability is decided by the eigenvalues of the $5\times5$ Jacobian. The interaction spectrum is quantified by dividing each species' equilibrium density in coculture by its density in monoculture, so ratios above, near, or below 1 mark mutualism, commensalism, and parasitism, respectively.

What would settle it

Measure the real efflux rates $\epsilon_1,\epsilon_2$ (and the yield factors and Monod constants) for a specific auxotrophic pair, run the chemostat model with those numbers, and compare the predicted coexistence densities and the $M_{2,\mathrm{in}}$ value at which the coculture-to-monoculture ratio crosses unity; if the measured efflux rate is outside the stable range, or if the interaction spectrum does not shift monotonically with $M_{2,\mathrm{in}}$, the paper's quantitative claims fail. A crisper test is the bistability prediction: inoculate below the critical initial density shown in the phase-space diagrams and check whether the culture reproducibly collapses to extinction, or inoculate above it and check that coexistence is reliably attained.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central claim is that a mechanistic chemostat model of reciprocal cross-feeding reproduces two observed ecological phenomena. First, the nontrivial equilibrium of two metabolically interdependent microbes remains stable over a wide range of trait asymmetries: intrinsic growth rates $r_2$ between roughly $0.11$ and $100\,\text{h}^{-1}$, metabolite efflux rates down to $1\,\text{fg}/(\text{cell}\cdot\text{h})$, and Monod constants spanning many orders of magnitude. The author interprets this as the system compensating for differences in biological traits. Second, the interaction type is not fixed: raising the influx concentration $M_{2,\mathrm{in}}$ of the metabolite that species 1 requires makes the coculture-to-monoculture ratio for species 1 fall from effectively infinite (obligate mutualism) through roughly unity (commensalism) to below unity (parasitism), while species 2 always benefits from the partnership. The paper also shows that raising the influx $R_{\mathrm{in}}$ of the shared resource moves the mutualism-to-parasitism transition to higher $M_{2,\mathrm{in}}$, and that the extinction state is always stable, so reaching the symbiotic equilibrium requires sufficiently large inocula.

Load-bearing premise

The entire quantitative output rests on the assumption that both symbionts export their exchanged metabolite at a constant rate of 300 fg per cell per hour, a value the author states had to be estimated because no research literature exists on the topic.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A stable syntrophic consortium can be assembled from strains whose intrinsic growth rates differ by up to two orders of magnitude, so close trait matching is not a precondition for coexistence.
At external metabolite influx around $10\,K_1$, the interaction becomes commensal, and above that the first symbiont is harmed by its partner's presence; the relationship is therefore a product of the environment, not a fixed property of the pair.
Raising the supply of the shared limiting resource delays the mutualism-to-parasitism transition, implying that richer media can keep a partnership mutualistic at metabolite concentrations that would otherwise make it parasitic.
Because extinction is always a stable steady state, starter culture sizes determine whether a syntrophic consortium establishes; low inocula collapse, while sufficiently large inocula reach coexistence.
Since all parameters are experimentally accessible, the model yields quantitative predictions that can be tested directly in chemostat co-cultures of synthetic auxotrophic strains.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

If the model's spectrum result is general, then reported interaction types in cross-feeding experiments should be published with the exact medium composition, because the same pair would be classified differently at different external metabolite concentrations.
The bistability between extinction and coexistence suggests a practical route to domesticating 'unculturable' symbionts: larger inocula or metabolite supplementation might push the culture into the coexistence basin, a concrete extension of the paper's own remark about unculturable taxa.
The paper's closing argument on evolutionary erosion implies that long-term stability requires some fitness benefit for metabolite release; coupling these ODEs to adaptive dynamics of the efflux rates $\epsilon_1,\epsilon_2$ would be a natural next step.
The compensation of trait asymmetries predicts that in synthetic cross-feeding pairs, a fast-growing symbiont will dominate numerically but not destroy the partnership, which could be tested by measuring abundance ratios across strains with different $r$ values.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Here's the thing: the paper presents a five-ODE chemostat model of disjunctive syntrophy and, on the symbolic side, much of Section 4 is sound. The extension to include a shared limiting resource and asymmetric traits is legitimate, and the Jacobian is correctly built. The qualitative idea—that the interaction can move along a mutualism-to-parasitism spectrum—fits with earlier experimental work, so the motivation is fine.

But the numerical results do not hold up. Take Table 3's r2=1 row: N1=N2≈1e9, R∞=5.6e9 fg/ml, M1=M2=2.9e12 fg/ml. With Table 1 parameters, the effective growth rate β from Eq. (2.1) is about 0.053 h−1, well below ω=0.1 h−1. So dN/dt=(β−ω)N is −0.047N, not zero. Similarly, Eq. (4.3) gives R∞≈0 if N1=N2=1e9 and α=1000 fg/cell, not the reported 5.6e9. The same problems appear in the other tables, including the 'stable coexistence' row in Table 2. These are not rounding issues; they are states that are not equilibrium states of the stated model. The tables are the only evidence for both central claims—robustness to trait asymmetry and the resource-mediated spectrum—so those claims are unsupported.

The unmeasured efflux rate (ε=300 fg/h) is a soft spot, but it is secondary. Even with a perfect parameter set, the reported numbers would still violate the model. The stability analysis also relies on sampled eigenvalues rather than derived conditions, which is weaker.

If the numerics were redone, the qualitative conclusions might still emerge. But as written, the quantitative support collapses. The symbolic equilibrium relations could be of use to someone building on this model, but I would not cite the stability tables.

My recommendation: desk reject or ask for major revision with reanalysis. A serious referee would likely catch this and reject anyway; better to have the author rerun the calculations first. If it comes back with corrected tables and a measured or properly bounded efflux rate, then it would be worth a real review. As it stands, no.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper derives a five-ODE chemostat model of disjunctive metabolic symbiosis, in which each of two microbial species grows on a shared limiting resource and on a metabolite excreted by the other species. The author writes down Monod-type growth functions, defines mass-balance equations for populations, resource, and two exchanged metabolites, and then studies non-trivial steady states and their stability. The main claims are that the coexistence equilibrium is robust to large differences in intrinsic growth rates and metabolite-related traits (Section 5), and that varying the external influx concentration of one metabolite shifts the interaction continuously from mutualism through commensalism to parasitism (Section 6). These claims are supported by tables of numerically computed equilibria and Jacobian spectra, and by phase-plane plots of initial-condition dependence.

Significance. If the numerical results were correct, the paper would provide a mechanistic, parameter-based explanation of two biologically interesting phenomena: trait-robust coexistence in syntrophic pairs and environment-dependent shifts along a mutualism–parasitism continuum. The model construction itself is transparent and largely parameter-measurable, and the Jacobian in Eq. (4.6) is correctly dimensioned. However, the paper's evidence is entirely numerical, and the numerical equilibria reported in Tables 2–8 do not satisfy the model's own steady-state equations. Because both central claims rest on these tables, the significance of the manuscript as it stands is not established.

major comments (4)

[Section 4, Tables 2 and 3] The reported non-trivial steady states are not equilibria of the stated model. Using Table 1 parameters (K1=K2=10 µg/ml = 1e10 fg/ml, L1=L2=100 µg/ml = 1e11 fg/ml, r1=r2=1 h^-1, ω=0.1 h^-1), the Table 3 row for r2=1 lists N1=N2≈1.0e9 cells/ml, R(∞)=5.6e9 fg/ml, and M1(∞)=M2(∞)=2.9e12 fg/ml. Substituting into Eq. (2.1) gives β1=β2≈(2.9e12/(2.9e12+1e10))·(5.6e9/(5.6e9+1e11))·1 h^-1≈0.053 h^-1, which is less than ω=0.1 h^-1. Hence dN_i/dt=(β_i−ω)N_i<0 at the reported state, so it is not stationary. The same inconsistency appears in Table 2: with R(∞)=5.6e9 and r1=1, β1 cannot reach 0.1 h^-1 regardless of M2. The tabulated R(∞) values correspond to a resource Monod factor of about 0.053, which would require an intrinsic growth rate near 1.9 h^-1 to balance washout, not r=1 h^-1.
[Section 4, Eq. (4.4)] The analytical steady-state formula is itself inconsistent with Table 3. Equation (4.4) requires (r1/ω) · R(∞)/(R(∞)+L1) > 1 for a positive M2(∞). For the r2=1 row, R(∞)=5.6e9, L1=1e11, r1/ω=10, so the product is 10 × 0.053 ≈ 0.53 < 1, which yields a negative metabolite concentration, not the positive M2(∞)=2.9e12 in the table. This is not a rounding issue; the reported state violates the model's own necessary condition for a feasible equilibrium.
[Section 6, Tables 7 and 8] The symbiotic spectrum is computed as the ratio of coculture equilibria to monoculture equilibria, but both sets of equilibria are obtained from the same non-stationary states. Since the Table 3 equilibria are not equilibria, the ratios in Tables 7 and 8 do not measure the effect of coculture on equilibrium population densities. The claim that increasing M2,in shifts the interaction from mutualism through commensalism to parasitism is therefore unsupported by the numerical evidence presented.
[Section 3] The constant metabolite efflux rate is a load-bearing parameter that is openly estimated: 'Due to the lack of research literature on the topic, the efflux rate had to be estimated to be 300 fg/h.' All equilibrium values, stability ranges, and interaction-type transitions in Tables 2–8 depend on this value, and no sensitivity analysis with respect to ϵ1, ϵ2 is provided. This would be a serious caveat even if the equilibria were internally consistent; here it compounds the correctness problem.

minor comments (6)

[Introduction] The word 'infering' should be 'inferring' in the description of Mee et al. (2014).
[Section 4] The sentence 'This can be explained by the fact that increasing the external metabolite concentrations will increase the realised growth rates of the two populations and, therefore, allow them to grow faster than the washout rate ω' repeats 'state' as 'state state' in the preceding sentence: 'converge to the stable state state of non-extinction.'
[Section 4, Eq. (4.7)] The Jacobian of the extinction state with added metabolites is described as 'a lower diagonal matrix'; it is lower triangular, not lower diagonal in the usual sense.
[Tables 3–6 and 9–10] The captions state that 'All values are rounded to the first decimal place,' but the entries are given with one or two significant figures and orders of magnitude; this phrasing is inaccurate and should be corrected.
[Section 5.2, Table 6] The table for K2 lists values of M2(∞) that decrease with K2 until the K2=1e10 row, after which M1(∞) and M2(∞) swap roles; the caption does not note this symmetry, which may confuse readers.
[References] Some references are cited by author-year in the text (e.g., Miller, 1972; Raetz, 1996) but the reference list entries are not all formatted consistently; for example, Raetz (1996) is listed without a full citation title.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the model's equilibria and interaction spectrum are derived from the stated ODEs and literature-based parameters, with no fitted target data or self-citation chain.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are obtained by solving the five ODEs (2.1)-(2.4) for steady states and evaluating stability. The trait-robust coexistence result (Section 5) is a numerical continuation of the same equilibrium equations; the symbiotic spectrum (Section 6) is computed by comparing coculture equilibria with monoculture equilibria obtained from the same model by deleting terms. These comparisons are internal consistency checks that define interaction categories, not predictions fitted to the phenomenon. The efflux rate ϵ=300 fg/h is explicitly an estimate adopted for lack of literature, so it is a parameter uncertainty that affects soundness, not circularity. There are no self-citations used as load-bearing support, no uniqueness theorem imported, and no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. A skeptical reader's reported arithmetic discrepancy (tables apparently inconsistent with Eq. 2.1 at r2=1) would be a correctness defect if confirmed, but it is not a circularity defect: the derivation chain does not reduce to its own inputs. Therefore the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on eight unmeasured or assumed biological and culture parameters, most importantly the metabolite efflux rate that the author admits had to be estimated because no literature value is available. No invented physical entities are introduced. The model's qualitative phase behavior follows from the chosen Monod product structure and constant-yield assumptions, so the ledger is dominated by modeling assumptions rather than by fitted target data.

free parameters (8)

Intrinsic growth rates r1, r2 = 1 per hour
Set to a typical E. coli division rate (Section 3, Table 1); not measured for the modeled species. The r2 sweep in Table 3 is relative to this value.
Metabolite efflux rates epsilon1, epsilon2 = 300 fg/(cell*h)
Explicitly estimated because of lack of literature (Section 3). Carries all quantitative predictions in Tables 2 to 10.
Yield factor for exchanged metabolites gamma1, gamma2 = 100 fg/cell
Assumed from E. coli phosphorus content (Fagerbakke et al., 1996), not measured for the specific cross-fed metabolites.
Yield factor for limited resource alpha1, alpha2 = 1000 fg/cell
Estimated from dry weight and sugar-to-biomass conversion (Section 3); affects carrying capacity directly.
Monod constants for exchanged metabolites K1, K2 = 10 micrograms/ml
Assumed similar to the E. coli phosphate Monod constant; the text mentions micrograms per single cell while the table says micrograms per ml, a unit inconsistency.
Monod constants for limited resource L1, L2 = 100 micrograms/ml
Approximated from the E. coli glucose Monod constant; unverified for arbitrary species.
Washout rate omega = 0.1 per hour
Chosen as a standard chemostat dilution rate (Ziv et al., 2013); it sets the survival threshold r2 greater than about 0.11.
Resource influx concentration Rin = 2 g/l
Chosen as a typical glucose concentration in minimal medium (Miller, 1972); it sets carrying capacities and the spectrum in Tables 7 and 8.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Growth of each species is the product of two Monod terms for the exchanged metabolite and the shared resource (Eq. 2.1).
This functional form is assumed in Section 2, not derived from data; alternative kinetics would change the equilibria.
domain assumption The chemostat is well mixed with a uniform washout rate for cells and solutes.
Assumptions (3) to (5) in Section 2; ignores spatial structure and biofilms, which are common in real syntrophy.
domain assumption Efflux and uptake stoichiometry are constants (epsilon, gamma, alpha), independent of concentration and time.
Section 2 assumptions (2) to (4); no regulation or metabolic burden is included.
domain assumption There is no death term other than washout; growth below washout implies extinction.
Eq. 2.2; standard chemostat simplification.
domain assumption Species cannot grow without the exchanged metabolite when the inflow concentration is zero.
From Eq. 2.1 with M equal to zero; this imposes obligate interdependence in the monoculture baseline of Section 6.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A mechanistic model of disjunctive metabolic symbioses in microbes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NWJBB6VN

@misc{pith2026190802316,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A mechanistic model of disjunctive metabolic symbioses in microbes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NWJBB6VN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.02316}
}

read the original abstract

Lately, experimental research on microbial symbioses based on nutrient exchange and interdependence has yielded a number of interesting findings, however an in-depth mathematical description of the exact underlying dynamics of such symbiotic associations is still missing. Here, we derive and analyse a mechanistic mathematical model of such a relationship in a continuous chemostat culture based on five coupled differential equations. The influence of the biological traits of the involved organisms on the position and stability of the equilibrium states of the system is examined. We also demonstrate how manipulating the external metabolite concentrations of the system can shift the species interaction on a continuous spectrum ranging from mutualism over commensalism to parasitism.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.02316 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Schematic overview over the devised model describing the disjunctive symbiosis based on metabolic interdependence. Species N1 releases metabolite M1 into the culture medium which is taken up by species N2, which in turn releases metabolite M2 into the medium which is required by species N1. Both N1 and N2 depend on a limited resource R as well. 3. Parametrisation of the model The model was parametrised as described … view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Phase space diagram of the case of r2 = 0.11. Note, how sufficiently high inoculation sizes are required for reaching the nonextinction state (black disc). 5.2. Parameters relating to the metabolites. Now, we analyse how differences in those biological traits, that relate to the efflux and utilisation of the exchanged metabolites, will affect the equilibrium states of the system. First, we estimate the range of me… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Phase space diagram of the case of 2 = 1.0. Note, how sufficiently high inoculation sizes are required for reaching the nonextinction state (black disc). γ2 N1(∞) N2(∞) R(∞) M1(∞) M2(∞) 1 9.8 × 108 1.0 × 109 5.6 × 109 2.9 × 1012 2.9 × 1012 10 9.8 × 108 1.0 × 109 5.6 × 109 2.9 × 1012 2.9 × 1012 100 1.0 × 109 1.0 × 109 5.6 × 109 2.9 × 1012 2.9 × 1012 1000 1.1 × 109 8.7 × 108 5.6 × 109 2.5 × 1012 2.5 × 1012 10000 1.6… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Phase space diagram of the case of γ2 = 1 × 104 . Note, how sufficiently high inoculation sizes are required for reaching the nonextinction state (black disc). K2 N1(∞) N2(∞) R(∞) M1(∞) M2(∞) 1 × 101 6.4 × 107 1.9 × 109 5.6 × 109 5.8 × 103 5.8 × 1012 1 × 105 6.4 × 107…

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Phase space diagram of the case of K2 = 1 × 1013. Note, how sufficiently high inoculation sizes are required for reaching the nonextinction state (black disc). provide each other with. For brevity purposes these results are presented in Appendix A. 6. The symbiotic sp…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

[1]

E., Kristensen, E., and Thamdrup, B

Canfield, D. E., Kristensen, E., and Thamdrup, B. (2005). Aquatic geomicrobiology . Gulf Professional Publishing

work page 2005
[2]

E., Mayali, X., Bebout, B

de Bashan, L. E., Mayali, X., Bebout, B. M., Weber, P. K., Detweiler, A. M., Hernandez, J.-P., Prufert-Bebout, L., and Bashan, Y. (2016). Establishment of stable synthetic mutualism without co-evolution between microalgae and bacteria demonstrated by mutual transfer of metabolites (nanosims isotopic imaging) and persistent physical association (fluorescen...

work page 2016
[3]

Douglas, A. (1994). Symbiotic Interactions: Oxford Science Publications . Oxford University Press, Oxford

work page 1994
[4]

M., Heldal, M., and Norland, S

Fagerbakke, K. M., Heldal, M., and Norland, S. (1996). Content of carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, sulfur and phosphorus in native aquatic and cultured bacteria. Aquatic Microbial Ecology , 10(1):15--27

work page 1996
[5]

G., Peckham, B., and Pastor, J

Graves, W. G., Peckham, B., and Pastor, J. (2006). A bifurcation analysis of a differential equations model for mutualism. Bulletin of mathematical biology , 68(8):1851--1872

work page 2006
[6]

and Soyer, O

Gro kopf, T. and Soyer, O. S. (2014). Synthetic microbial communities. Current opinion in microbiology , 18:72--77

work page 2014
[7]

A., Axelrod, K., Biancalani, T., Yurtsev, E

Hoek, T. A., Axelrod, K., Biancalani, T., Yurtsev, E. A., Liu, J., and Gore, J. (2016). Resource availability modulates the cooperative and competitive nature of a microbial cross-feeding mutualism. PLoS biology , 14(8):e1002540

work page 2016
[8]

and Jeon, M

Jeon, K. and Jeon, M. (1976). Endosymbiosis in amoebae: recently established endosymbionts have become required cytoplasmic components. Journal of cellular physiology , 89(2):337--344

work page 1976

Show all 32 references

[9]

Jeon, K. W. (1972). Development of cellular dependence on infective organisms: micrurgical studies in amoebas. Science , 176(4039):1122--1123

1972
[10]

Kerner, A., Park, J., Williams, A., and Lin, X. N. (2012). A programmable E scherichia coli consortium via tunable symbiosis. PLoS One , 7(3):e34032

2012
[11]

Kouzuma, A., Kato, S., and Watanabe, K. (2015). Microbial interspecies interactions: recent findings in syntrophic consortia. Frontiers in microbiology , 6:477

2015
[12]

T., Martinko, J

Madigan, M. T., Martinko, J. M., Parker, J., et al. (2017). Brock biology of microorganisms , volume 13. Pearson

2017
[13]

T., Collins, J

Mee, M. T., Collins, J. J., Church, G. M., and Wang, H. H. (2014). Syntrophic exchange in synthetic microbial communities. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 111(20):E2149--E2156

2014
[14]

Megee, R., Drake, J., Fredrickson, A., and Tsuchiya, H. (1972). Studies in intermicrobial symbiosis. saccharomyces cerevisiae and lactobacillus casei. Canadian journal of microbiology , 18(11):1733--1742

1972
[15]

H., Wong, A., and Kassen, R

Melnyk, A. H., Wong, A., and Kassen, R. (2015). The fitness costs of antibiotic resistance mutations. Evolutionary applications , 8(3):273--283

2015
[16]

Miller, J. (1972). Experiments in molecular genetics . Bacterial genetics - E. coli. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory

1972
[17]

Monod, J. (1949). The growth of bacterial cultures. Annual Reviews in Microbiology , 3(1):371--394

1949
[18]

and Schubert, K

Overmann, J. and Schubert, K. (2002). Phototrophic consortia: model systems for symbiotic interrelations between prokaryotes. Archives of microbiology , 177(3):201--208

2002
[19]

and Kost, C

Pande, S. and Kost, C. (2017). Bacterial unculturability and the formation of intercellular metabolic networks. Trends in microbiology , 25(5):349--361

2017
[20]

M., Harley, J

Prescott, L. M., Harley, J. P., Klein, D. A., and Willey, J. M. (2010). Microbiologie . De Boeck Sup \'e rieur

2010
[21]

Raetz, C. (1996). Escherichia coli and salmonella cellular and molecular biology. Escherichia coli and Salmonella: Cellular and Molecular Biology , 1:1035--1063

1996
[22]

Senn, H., Lendenmann, U., Snozzi, M., Hamer, G., and Egli, T. (1994). The growth of escherichia coli in glucose-limited chemostat cultures: a re-examination of the kinetics. Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA)-General Subjects , 1201(3):424--436

1994
[23]

Shapiro, J. W. and Turner, P. E. (2018). Evolution of mutualism from parasitism in experimental virus populations. Evolution , 72(3):707--712

2018
[24]

W., Williams, E

Shapiro, J. W., Williams, E. S., and Turner, P. E. (2016). Evolution of parasitism and mutualism between filamentous phage m13 and escherichia coli. PeerJ , 4:e2060

2016
[25]

Shehata, T. E. and Marr, A. G. (1971). Effect of nutrient concentration on the growth of escherichia coli. Journal of Bacteriology , 107(1):210--216

1971
[26]

and Fass, R

Shiloach, J. and Fass, R. (2005). Growing e. coli to high cell density—a historical perspective on method development. Biotechnology advances , 23(5):345--357

2005
[27]

Stewart, E. J. (2012). Growing unculturable bacteria. Journal of bacteriology , 194(16):4151--4160

2012
[28]

Stump, S. M. and Klausmeier, C. A. (2016). Competition and coexistence between a syntrophic consortium and a metabolic generalist, and its effect on productivity. Journal of theoretical biology , 404:348--360

2016
[29]

E., Souza, V., and Lenski, R

Turner, P. E., Souza, V., and Lenski, R. E. (1996). Tests of ecological mechanisms promoting the stable coexistence of two bacterial genotypes. Ecology , 77(7):2119--2129

1996
[30]

A., Tang, Y

Wu, G., Yan, Q., Jones, J. A., Tang, Y. J., Fong, S. S., and Koffas, M. A. (2016). Metabolic burden: cornerstones in synthetic biology and metabolic engineering applications. Trends in biotechnology , 34(8):652--664

2016
[31]

I., Yukalova, E., and Sornette, D

Yukalov, V. I., Yukalova, E., and Sornette, D. (2012). Modeling symbiosis by interactions through species carrying capacities. Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena , 241(15):1270--1289

2012
[32]

J., and Gresham, D

Ziv, N., Brandt, N. J., and Gresham, D. (2013). The use of chemostats in microbial systems biology. Journal of visualized experiments: JoVE , (80)

2013

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

E., Kristensen, E., and Thamdrup, B

Canfield, D. E., Kristensen, E., and Thamdrup, B. (2005). Aquatic geomicrobiology . Gulf Professional Publishing

work page 2005

[2] [2]

E., Mayali, X., Bebout, B

de Bashan, L. E., Mayali, X., Bebout, B. M., Weber, P. K., Detweiler, A. M., Hernandez, J.-P., Prufert-Bebout, L., and Bashan, Y. (2016). Establishment of stable synthetic mutualism without co-evolution between microalgae and bacteria demonstrated by mutual transfer of metabolites (nanosims isotopic imaging) and persistent physical association (fluorescen...

work page 2016

[3] [3]

Douglas, A. (1994). Symbiotic Interactions: Oxford Science Publications . Oxford University Press, Oxford

work page 1994

[4] [4]

M., Heldal, M., and Norland, S

Fagerbakke, K. M., Heldal, M., and Norland, S. (1996). Content of carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, sulfur and phosphorus in native aquatic and cultured bacteria. Aquatic Microbial Ecology , 10(1):15--27

work page 1996

[5] [5]

G., Peckham, B., and Pastor, J

Graves, W. G., Peckham, B., and Pastor, J. (2006). A bifurcation analysis of a differential equations model for mutualism. Bulletin of mathematical biology , 68(8):1851--1872

work page 2006

[6] [6]

and Soyer, O

Gro kopf, T. and Soyer, O. S. (2014). Synthetic microbial communities. Current opinion in microbiology , 18:72--77

work page 2014

[7] [7]

A., Axelrod, K., Biancalani, T., Yurtsev, E

Hoek, T. A., Axelrod, K., Biancalani, T., Yurtsev, E. A., Liu, J., and Gore, J. (2016). Resource availability modulates the cooperative and competitive nature of a microbial cross-feeding mutualism. PLoS biology , 14(8):e1002540

work page 2016

[8] [8]

and Jeon, M

Jeon, K. and Jeon, M. (1976). Endosymbiosis in amoebae: recently established endosymbionts have become required cytoplasmic components. Journal of cellular physiology , 89(2):337--344

work page 1976