Cooperative metabolic resource allocation in spatially-structured systems

David S. Tourigny

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 84 references

Cooperative metabolic resource allocation in spatially-structured systems

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 A maximum-entropy control law using only a population-wide biomass measure determines when cells cooperate via cross-feeding.

desk verdict A clean mathematical extension of max-ent metabolic control to cooperative spatial populations, honest about its own limits, but the explanatory claim rests on a free parameter and an unverified global-sensing premise. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.05307 v3 pith:55APYYAF submitted 2019-08-14 q-bio.MN math.DSphysics.bio-ph

David S. Tourigny This is my paper · ORCID

classification q-bio.MNmath.DSphysics.bio-ph MSC 92C4292C40

keywords maximumentropymetabolicresourceallocationcross-feedingquorumsensingcooperativemetabolismbiofilmsgeneralizedmeanelementaryfluxmodes

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 argues that cooperative cross-feeding between cells can be described by the same maximum-entropy principle used for bet-hedging, once the objective is changed from maximizing each cell's own biomass to maximizing a generalized mean of biomass across the population. The load-bearing result is a control law whose greedy effective return-on-investment contains a sigmoid factor comparing local biomass to the rest of the population. This factor tells a cell whether to concentrate resources on its own growth or spread them across pathways that feed neighbors. The theory then predicts how cross-feeding should depend on nutrient limitation, population density, and the choice of welfare function, and reproduces qualitative patterns in a two-node biofilm/colony model. A reader should care because it offers a first-principles explanation of why local metabolic cooperation can serve a community-wide objective using only one global signal.

What carries the argument

The central object is the generalized mean $M_p(x) = ((1/N)\sum_i x_i^p)^{1/p}$ of total catalytic biomass over the population network, which interpolates between utilitarian ($p=1$), Nash ($p\to 0$), egalitarian ($p\to -\infty$), and elitist ($p\to +\infty$) welfare functions. The argument runs through the greedy effective return-on-investment $R_{k,i}^0 = [x_i^p/(x_i^p + y^p)] M_p(x) R_k^0(m_i)$, where $y=(\sum_{j\ne i}x_j^p)^{1/p}$ measures the rest of the population. The sigmoid factor $x_i^p/(x_i^p + y^p)$ is the mechanism: it compares local biomass with the global ensemble and modulates the spread of resource across elementary flux modes, and the Boltzmann form of the control law is the maximum-entropy step that turns these returns into allocation fractions.

What would settle it

In a two-layer colony where only the lower layer receives glucose, measure the fermentation-product secretion rate of the glucose-fed layer while manipulating the biomass ratio between layers. The egalitarian control predicts that the glucose-fed node secretes more fermentation product when its biomass is above the global ensemble value and less when below; if secretion does not respond to the relative biomass signal, or responds identically when the global signal is blocked, the central claim is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that a cooperative maximum entropy control, Equation (7) with the greedy effective return-on-investment in Equation (8), describes when cells in a spatially structured population should allocate metabolic resources to cross-feeding pathways rather than to their own growth. The control law maximizes $M_p(x)$, a generalized mean of total catalytic biomass across the population network, and requires no detailed knowledge of other cells' states: the only global information is the ensemble measure $M_p(x)$ and the complementary sum $y$. For $p<0$ (egalitarian regime), cells that are large relative to the population spread resource more evenly across pathways, favoring export of metabolites, while cells that are small concentrate on growth, so the lowest-biomass node is lifted. For $p>0$ (elitist regime) the behavior reverses, favoring the dominant node, and at $p=0$ the Nash regime applies a uniform cooperative factor. The paper shows in a two-node model that these regimes change the growth of a glucose-deprived node in the predicted direction.

Load-bearing premise

The argument depends on cells having evolved to optimize a single community-wide measure of everyone's biomass, and on their being able to sense that measure; without that, the predicted cooperative behavior has no basis.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the control law is right, metabolic cross-feeding is not a separate evolutionary invention but a bet-hedging response once the objective includes the community's welfare.
It predicts that cross-feeding should increase when the producing node's biomass exceeds the rest of the population in egalitarian regimes, and decrease in elitist regimes.
The theory unifies dynamic flux balance analysis, unregulated balanced-growth models, and proportional-law cybernetic models as limits of one control law, while adding cooperative behavior none of them exhibit.
It explains why quorum sensing can regulate metabolism even when cells have no information about individuals elsewhere: the ensemble measure is sufficient.
It identifies the Nash geometric-mean objective as a plausible compromise point, and simulations show Nash and egalitarian trajectories nearly coincide in the two-node model.

Reading between the lines

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

If $p$ is an evolutionarily adjustable trait, different species or environments should be classifiable by their inferred $p$: measuring cross-feeding fluxes under imposed biomass asymmetries could fit a value of $p$ for a given community.
The same control law could be transferred to spatially organized eukaryotic systems such as tumor lactate shuttling, predicting that hypoxic subpopulations receive more cross-fed metabolite when the community objective is egalitarian; this is an extension the author notes is plausible but does not test.
An experimental test could externally control the putative global signal, such as a quorum-sensing molecule, without changing local metabolism; the theory predicts allocation shifts along the sigmoid even if the local nutrient state is held fixed.
The near-identity of Nash and egalitarian trajectories in the two-node model suggests the cooperative regime may be insensitive to the exact value of $p$ near zero, but whether this holds for larger networks is an open question that the paper does not address.

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

You should read this before the next microbial systems meeting. Tourigny extends his earlier maximum-entropy resource allocation framework [35] to cooperative, spatially structured populations. The new math is sound and the paper is candid about its limitations, but the central 'explains why' claim is only as strong as the assumption that cells optimize a shared generalized mean of biomass.

What is genuinely new is Eq. (8): the greedy effective return-on-investment with the sigmoid factor x_i^p/(x_i^p + y^p) times M_p(x). That factor is absent from the individualistic control law, and the p=1 limit recovers [35] exactly. The Appendix A derivation is algebraically clean; differentiating M_p(x) gives the sigmoid, and the p=1 reduction checks out. The paper also positions itself honestly relative to the literature, including quorum sensing and cross-feeding work, and it explicitly flags that the simulations are 'purely qualitative' with generic parameters and no fit to data.

The soft spot is not the math. It is the modeling premise: every node is assumed to share the same cooperative objective M_p(x), with one free p, and to know the global statistics y and M_p via quorum sensing or hormones. The abstract includes the conditional 'if individuals take into consideration an ensemble measure,' which is fine. But the conclusion and some framing go further, suggesting the theory explains observed cooperation. Since p is free and ranges from egalitarian (p<<0) to elitist (p>>0) to Nash (p=0), Figure 4 is an illustration of the assumed objective, not a test that distinguishes it from local feedback or bet-hedging alternatives. There is also no direct evidence that any organism computes M_p(x) or y, although quorum sensing is a plausible candidate.

The two-node model forces G2=0, so the comparison across p is about how much the dominant node assists a dependent neighbor, not about whether cross-feeding emerges spontaneously. That is a minor issue given the stated scope.

Overall, this is a serious theoretical paper. The derivation is reproducible, the p=1 check is genuine evidence of continuity with prior work, and the framework is clearly presented. It deserves a serious referee, not a desk reject. I would send it to review and ask the author to discuss what evidence would fix p or falsify the cooperative objective. The paper is best read as a formal contribution to metabolic control theory, not as an empirical explanation of microbial cooperation.

For my own work, I would probably cite it if I were writing on max-ent metabolic models, but it would not change how I think about experimental systems without an independent way to constrain p.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript extends the author's earlier maximum-entropy framework for dynamic metabolic resource allocation to spatially structured populations. It assumes a cooperative objective given by the generalized mean M_p(x) of total catalytic biomass across nodes, derives a greedy cooperative maximum-entropy control law (Eq. 7) whose effective return-on-investment (Eq. 8) contains a sigmoid factor x_i^p/(x_i^p+y^p), and shows how the sign of p interpolates between egalitarian, Nash, utilitarian, and elitist cross-feeding regimes. A two-node biofilm/colony model is simulated for representative p values, showing that egalitarian control increases the growth of a node lacking glucose while elitist control suppresses it. The appendix proves the p=1 limit recovers the individualistic control of [35].

Significance. If accepted, the paper would provide a parsimonious information-theoretic account of how a global population-level signal (e.g., quorum sensing) could locally regulate metabolic cross-feeding, unifying bet-hedging and cooperation under one maximum-entropy principle. The algebraic derivation is clean and the p=1 limit is correctly recovered. However, the explanatory claim rests on the unverified postulate that cells maximize M_p(x) with a single shared p; without independent justification or estimation of p, the model demonstrates consequences of an assumed objective rather than testing it. The paper's own 'purely qualitative' disclaimer in Section 4 appropriately limits the scope of the simulations. The theoretical framework is a useful contribution, but the central empirical/explanatory claim is not yet established.

major comments (3)

[Section 2, Eq. (5)] The cooperative objective M_p(x) is introduced as a postulate, with no evolutionary argument for why natural selection would favor this particular generalized-mean welfare function or why a single exponent p should be shared across all nodes. Because p is a free parameter (Table 1; Figure 4 uses p=1, -100, 0.01, 100), the family (5) spans the utilitarian, egalitarian, Nash, and elitist regimes by construction. The abstract and Section 5 state that the theory 'explains why' cooperative cross-feeding can fulfil a community-wide objective; this goes beyond the conditional statement in the abstract ('if individuals take into consideration an ensemble measure'). Please either soften the explanatory claims to explicitly conditional predictions or provide an independent biological argument/empirical strategy for determining p.
[Section 3, Eq. (8); Appendix A] The sigmoid factor x_i^p/(x_i^p+y^p) in the greedy effective return-on-investment (8) is exactly the derivative ∂M_p/∂x_i (up to the multiplicative x_i), as derived in Appendix A. Consequently, the directional cross-feeding behavior (egalitarian nodes with x_i<y receive more investment; elitist nodes with x_i>y receive more) is a mathematical restatement of the assumed objective, not an emergent prediction of the maximum-entropy principle. The derivation is internally consistent, but the claim that the framework 'explains' cross-feeding is circular unless the generalized-mean objective is justified independently of the behavior it is meant to explain. Please acknowledge this explicitly and distinguish modeled assumption from emergent prediction.
[Section 4, Figure 4] The simulation study is explicitly qualitative: the text states that 'no attempt has been made to fit them to experimental data' and that predictions 'should be treated as purely qualitative.' Figure 4 sweeps the free parameter p over the four regimes rather than testing a falsifiable prediction. As a result, the qualitative contrast between individualistic, egalitarian, elitist, and Nash trajectories does not discriminate the proposed mechanism from alternative local-feedback or bet-hedging explanations. A falsifiable prediction—for example, a quantitative relationship between quorum-sensing signal strength and the fraction of resource allocated to cross-feeding, or an estimation of p from published data—is needed to support the claimed explanatory power.

minor comments (5)

[Section 2, paragraph preceding Eq. (2)] The phrase 'conical combination combination of EFMs' contains a duplicated word; it should read 'conical combination of EFMs.'
[Section 3, second paragraph] The sentence 'Evaluation of (7) depends on a choice of ∆ t = 0' appears to be incomplete; it should read 'depends on a choice of ∆t = 0 or ∆t > 0.'
[Table 1] The units of kLa are listed as g·L^-1, but a volumetric mass transfer coefficient should have units of h^-1.
[Section 3, Eq. (8)] The quantity y is defined as a generalized sum over j ≠ i, but the notation y does not carry a node index; since y differs from node to node, consider writing y_i to avoid ambiguity.
[Figure 4 caption] The caption states that p=0.01 approximates the Nash regime (p→0); for consistency with p=-100 and p=100, consider explicitly noting that p=0.01 is used to approximate the p=0 limit.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the cooperative control is derived from an explicit objective, and the paper conditions its explanatory claim on that premise.

full rationale

The mathematical derivation chain is self-contained: Appendix A obtains the greedy cooperative control by differentiating the declared objective M_p(x), and the sigmoid factor in Eq. (8) is exactly x_i times the marginal contribution of x_i to M_p(x). This makes the directional cross-feeding behaviour for a given p a consequence of the assumed objective, but the paper does not disguise that assumption as an independent prediction: it scans p to represent different welfare regimes and explicitly states in Section 4 that parameter values are generic, no attempt was made to fit them, and predictions are 'purely qualitative'. The abstract's explanatory claim is also explicitly conditional ('if individuals take into consideration an ensemble measure'), so the central statement is a conditional optimality result rather than an unconditional empirical finding. The only substantive self-citation, to the author's prior framework [35], is not load-bearing because the needed maximum-entropy control derivation is reproduced in Appendix A, and the alternative-control comparison is based on the mathematics of the common factor in Eq. (8), not on an unverified uniqueness theorem. The unsupported biological premise that quorum sensing supplies M_p(x) and y is a correctness or empirical-validation concern, not a circularity. Accordingly, no specific circular step is identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The structural result rests on the chosen objective (M_p), the max-ent principle, the EFM/QSSA reduction, the global information assumption, and the greedy approximation. The simulation additionally uses generic kinetic parameters. No new physical entities are introduced; the global ensemble measure is a modeling abstraction, and quorum sensing or hormones are established biological signals.

free parameters (3)

p (generalized mean exponent) = not fitted; simulated values p = -100, 0.01, 1, 100
Chosen by hand to represent different social welfare objectives; the entire cooperative control law and cross-feeding predictions depend on p.
sigma (temperature/spread) = 1.0 (all simulations)
Controls the width of the Boltzmann resource distribution; inherited from the prior max-ent framework, set to 1.0 without fitting.
Table 1 kinetic and diffusion parameters = generic values, e.g., Vmax=1.0 h^-1, DG=0 h^-1
Chosen by hand from [35] and [83] to create a qualitative demonstration scenario; not fitted to data and not central to the structural derivation.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption Maximum entropy is the correct optimality principle for metabolic resource allocation.
Inherited from [35]; all control laws in this paper are Boltzmann distributions derived from maximizing entropy, Section 3 and Appendix A.
domain assumption Quasi-steady state assumption and elementary flux mode representation v = sum_k r_k u_k Z_k.
Reduces the metabolic network to a low-dimensional control system; Section 2, Eq. (3).
ad hoc to paper The cooperative metabolic objective is the generalized mean M_p(x) of total catalytic biomass.
Chosen to encode utilitarian, egalitarian, elitist, and Nash regimes; not derived from evolution or data, Section 2, Eq. (5).
ad hoc to paper Cells have access to global ensemble measures M_p(x) and y via quorum sensing or hormones.
Proposed biological mechanism for the required global information; the paper admits this is unclear for multicellular organisms, Section 2.
domain assumption Greedy approximation Delta t = 0 captures the relevant control behavior.
Only instantaneous effects are studied; temporal control is not considered, Section 3.
domain assumption A two-node population network with identical species captures the spatial cooperation phenomena.
Model simplification for biofilm/colony; spatial structure is assumed rather than emergent, Section 4.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Cooperative metabolic resource allocation in spatially-structured systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/55APYYAF

@misc{pith2026190805307,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Cooperative metabolic resource allocation in spatially-structured systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/55APYYAF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.05307}
}

read the original abstract

Natural selection has shaped the evolution of cells and multi-cellular organisms such that social cooperation can often be preferred over an individualistic approach to metabolic regulation. This paper extends a framework for dynamic metabolic resource allocation based on the maximum entropy principle to spatiotemporal models of metabolism with cooperation. Much like the maximum entropy principle encapsulates `bet-hedging' behaviour displayed by organisms dealing with future uncertainty in a fluctuating environment, its cooperative extension describes how individuals adapt their metabolic resource allocation strategy to further accommodate limited knowledge about the welfare of others within a community. The resulting theory explains why local regulation of metabolic cross-feeding can fulfil a community-wide metabolic objective if individuals take into consideration an ensemble measure of total population performance as the only form of global information. The latter is likely supplied by quorum sensing in microbial systems or signalling molecules such as hormones in multi-cellular eukaryotic organisms.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.05307 by the authors.

**Figure 3.** Cartoon illustration of the population network from the simple model in Section 4 as a microbial colony growing on an agar substrate containing glucose as a limiting nutrient. Spatial structure of the colony can be approximated as a lower and upper layer, represented by nodes i = 1 and i = 2 in the population network, respectively. Only cells in the lower layer that is in contact with the agar substrate have access … view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Trajectories for the local concentration of total catalytic biomass x2 obtained from simulation of the model described in Section 4, plotted for relevant values of p corresponding to the individualistic regime (p = 1), the egalitarian regime (p = −100), the elitist regime (p = 100), and the Nash regime (p = 0.01). 17 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_4.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

84 extracted references · 80 canonical work pages

[35]

Tourigny DS (2020) Dynamic metabolic resource allocation based on the maximum entropy principle. J. Math. Biol. 80: 2395-2430

work page 2020
[1]

Science 211: 1390-1396

Axelrod R, Hamilton WD (1981) The evolution of cooperation. Science 211: 1390-1396. 20

1981
[2]

Chao L, Levin BR (1981) Structured habitats and the evolution of anticompetitor toxins in bacteria. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 78: 6324-6328

1981
[3]

Nature 359: 826- 829

Nowak MA, May RM (1992) Evolutionary games and spatial chaos. Nature 359: 826- 829

1992
[4]

Nature 445: 533-536

Hansen SK, Rainey PB, Haagensen JA, Molin S (2007) Evolution of species interactions in a bioﬁlm community. Nature 445: 533-536

2007
[5]

Evolu- tion 64: 2166-2172

Harcombe W (2010) Novel cooperation experimentally evolved between species. Evolu- tion 64: 2166-2172

work page 2010
[6]

PLoS Comput

Nadell CD, Foster KR, Xavier JB (2010) Emergence of spatial structure in cell groups and the evolution of cooperation. PLoS Comput. Biol. 6: e1000716

work page 2010
[7]

Nature 428: 643-646

Hauert C, Doebeli M (2004) Spatial structure often inhibits the evolution of cooperation in the snowdrift game. Nature 428: 643-646

work page 2004

Show all 84 references

[8]

Oliveira NM, Niehus R, Foster KR (2014) Evolutionary limits to cooperation in micro- bial communities. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 111: 17941-17946

2014
[9]

Science 292: 504-507

Pfeiﬀer T, Schuster S, Bonhoeﬀer S (2001) Cooperation and competition in the evolution of ATP-producing pathways. Science 292: 504-507

2001
[10]

Martin W (2010) Evolutionary origins of metabolic compartmentalization in eukaryotes. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 365: 847-855

2010
[11]

Nelson DL, Cox MM, Michael M (2005) Lehninger Principles of Biochemistry, 4th ed. W.H. Freeman and Company, New York. pp 543

2005
[12]

Cell Metab

B´ elanger M, Allaman I, Magistretti PJ (2011) Brain energy metabolism: focus on astrocyte-neuron metabolic cooperation. Cell Metab. 14: 724-738

2011
[13]

(2008) Targeting lactate-fueled respiration selectively kills hypoxic tumor cells in mice

Sonveaux P et al. (2008) Targeting lactate-fueled respiration selectively kills hypoxic tumor cells in mice. J. Clin. Invest. 118: 3930-3942

2008
[14]

Semenza GL (2008) Tumor metabolism: cancer cells give and take lactate. J. Clin. Invest. 118: 3835-3837

2008
[15]

Trends Cell Biol

Lyssiotis CA, Kimmelman AC (2017) Metabolic interactions in the tumor microenvi- ronment. Trends Cell Biol. 27: 863-875

2017
[16]

In: Ballows AT, HG, Dworkin M, Schleifer KH, eds

Schink B (1991) Syntrophism among prokaryotes. In: Ballows AT, HG, Dworkin M, Schleifer KH, eds. The prokaryotes. 2nd ed. Springer-Verlag, New York. pp 276-299

1991
[17]

Antonie Van Leeuwen- hoek 81: 257-261

Schink B (2002) Synergistic interactions in the microbial world. Antonie Van Leeuwen- hoek 81: 257-261

2002
[18]

FEMS Microbiol

Morris BE, Henneberger R, Huber H, Moissl-Eichinger C (2013) Microbial syntrophy: interaction for the common good. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 37: 384-406. 21

2013
[19]

Processes 2: 711-752

Song H-S, Cannon WR, Beliaev AS, Konopka A (2014) Mathematical modeling of mi- crobial community dynamics: a methodological review. Processes 2: 711-752

2014
[20]

Cell Rep

Harcombe WR, Riehl WJ, Dukovski I, Granger BR, Betts A, Lang AH, Bonilla G, Kar A, Leiby N, Mehta P, Marx CJ, Segr` e D (2014) Metabolic resource allocation in individual microbes determines ecosystem interactions and spatial dynamics. Cell Rep. 7: 1104-1115

2014
[21]

Nat Rev Microbiol

Nadell CD, Drescher K, Foster KR (2016) Spatial structure, cooperation and competi- tion in bioﬁlms. Nat Rev Microbiol. 14: 589-600

2016
[22]

D’Souza G, Shitut S, Preussger D, Yousif G, Waschina S, Kost C (2018) Ecology and evolution of metabolic cross-feeding interactions in bacteria. Nat. Prod. Rep. 35: 455- 488

2018
[23]

mBio 9:e00961-18

Lin YC, Cornell WC, Jo J, Price-Whelan A, Dietrich LEP (2018) The Pseudomonas aeruginosa complement of lactate dehydrogenases enables use of D- and L-lactate and metabolic cross-feeding. mBio 9:e00961-18

2018
[24]

Smith NW, Shorten PR, Altermann E, Roy NC, McNabb WC (2019) The classiﬁcation and evolution of bacterial cross-feeding. Front. Ecol. Evol. 7: 153

2019
[25]

Trends Microbiol

Evans CR, Kempes CP, Price-Whelan A, Dietrich LEP (2020) Metabolic heterogeneity and cross-feeding in bacterial multicellular systems. Trends Microbiol. (in press) https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.tim.2020.03.008

2020 doi
[26]

Oxford University Press, Oxford

Seger J, Brockmann HJ (1987) What is bet-hedging? In Oxford Surveys in Evolutionary Biology, Harvey PH, Partridge L (eds). Oxford University Press, Oxford. pp 182-211

1987
[27]

Perkins TJ, Swain PS (2009) Strategies for cellular decision-making. Mol. Syst. Biol. 5: 326

2009
[28]

Ackermann M (2015) A functional perspective on phenotypic heterogeneity in microor- ganisms. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 13: 497-508

2015
[29]

Elife 6: e21415

Granados AA, Crane MM, Montano-Gutierrez LF, Tanaka RJ, Voliotis M, Swain PS (2017) Distributing tasks via multiple input pathways increases cellular survival in stress. Elife 6: e21415

2017
[30]

Jaynes, ET (1957) Information theory and statistical mechanics. Phys. Rev. 106: 620- 630

1957
[31]

IEEE Trans

Shore JE, Johnson RW (1980) Axiomatic derivation of the principle of maximum entropy and the principle of minimum cross-entropy. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 26: 26-37

1980
[32]

Bell Syst

Shannon CE (1948) A mathematical theory of communication. Bell Syst. Tech J. 27: 379-423

1948
[33]

Trends Ecol

Harte J, Newman EA (2014) Maximum information entropy: a foundation for ecological theory. Trends Ecol. Evol. 29: 384-389. 22

2014
[34]

Ridden SJ, Chang HH, Zygalakis KC, MacArthur BD (2015) Entropy, ergodicity, and stem cell multipotency. Phys. Rev. Lett. 115: 208103

2015
[36]

De Martino D, Andersson AMC, Bergmiller B, Guet CC, Tka˘ cik G (2017) Statistical mechanics for metabolic networks during steady state growth. Nat. Commun. 9: 2988

2017
[37]

PLoS Comput

Fernandez-de-Cossio-Diaz J, Mulet R (2019) Maximum entropy and population hetero- geneity in continuous cell cultures. PLoS Comput. Biol. 15: e1006823

2019
[38]

Biotechnol

Young JD, Ramkrishna D (2007) On the matching and proportional laws of cybernetic models. Biotechnol. Prog. 23: 83-99

2007
[39]

Biotechnol

Young JD, Henne KL, Morgan JA, Konopka AE, Ramkrishna D (2008) Integrating cy- bernetic modeling with pathway analysis provides a dynamic, systems-level description of metabolic control. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 100: 542-559

2008
[40]

Mahadevan R, Edwards JS, Doyle FJ 3rd (2002) Dynamic ﬂux balance analysis of diauxic growth in Escherichia coli. Biophys. J. 83: 1331-1340

2002
[41]

Provost A, Bastin, G (2004) Dynamic metabolic modelling under the balanced growth condition. J. Process Control 14: 717-728

2004
[42]

Bioprocess Biosyst

Provost A, Bastin G, Agathos SN, Schneider YJ (2006) Metabolic design of macroscopic bioreaction models: Application to Chinese hamster ovary cells. Bioprocess Biosyst. Eng. 29: 349-366

2006
[43]

Varma A, Palsson, BØ (1994) Metabolic ﬂux balancing: basic concepts, scientiﬁc and practical use. Nat. Biotechnol. 12: 994-998

1994
[44]

Biotechnol

Orth JD, Thiele I, Palsson, BØ (2010) What is ﬂux balance analysis? Nat. Biotechnol. 28: 245-248

2010
[45]

Schuster S, Hilgetag C (1994) On elementary ﬂux modes in biochemical reaction systems at steady state. J. Biol. Syst. 2: 165-182

1994
[46]

Barrat A, Barth´ elemy M, Vespignani A (2008) Dynamical processes on complex net- works, Cambridge Univ. Press

2008
[47]

Othmer HG, Scriven LE (1971) Instability and dynamic pattern in cellular networks. J. Theor. Biol. 32: 507-537

1971
[48]

Othmer HG, Scriven LE (1974) Nonlinear aspects of dynamic pattern in cellular net- works. J. Theor. Biol. 43, 83-112

1974
[49]

Nature Phys

Nakao H, Mikhailov AS (2010) Turing patterns in network-organized activator-inhibitor networks. Nature Phys. 6: 544-550. 23

2010
[50]

PLoS One 4: e4115

Bull JJ, Harcombe WR (2009) Population dynamics constrain the cooperative evolution of cross-feeding. PLoS One 4: e4115

2009
[51]

PLoS Biol

Hoek TA, Axelrod K, Biancalani T, Yurtsev EA, Liu J, Gore J (2016) Resource avail- ability modulates the cooperative and competitive nature of a microbial cross-feeding mutualism. PLoS Biol. 14: e1002540

2016
[52]

PLoS Comput

Germerodt S, Bohl K, L¨ uck A, Pande S, Schr¨ oter A, Kaleta C, Schuster S, Kost C (2016) Pervasive selection for cooperative cross-feeding in bacterial communities. PLoS Comput. Biol. 12: e1004986

2016
[53]

Pacheco AR, Moel M, Segr´ e D (2019) Costless metabolic secretions as drivers of inter- species interactions in microbial ecosystems. Nat. Commun. 10: 103

2019
[54]

(eds.), The new Palgrave dictionary of economics (2nd ed.)

Pattanaik PK (2008), ”Social welfare function (deﬁnition)”, in Durlauf, Steven N.; Blume, Lawrence E. (eds.), The new Palgrave dictionary of economics (2nd ed.). Pal- grave Macmillan, Basingstoke, Hampshire New York

2008
[55]

Econometrica 18: 155-162

Nash J (1950) The bargaining problem. Econometrica 18: 155-162

1950
[56]

Miller MB, Bassler BL (2001) Quorum sensing in bacteria. Annu. Rev. Microbiol. 55: 165-199

2001
[57]

An JH, Goo E, Kim H, Seo YS, Hwang I (2014) Bacterial quorum sensing and metabolic slowing in a cooperative population. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 111: 14912-14927

2014
[58]

Trends Microbiol

Goo E, An JH, Kang Y, Hwang I (2015) Control of bacterial metabolism by quorum sensing. Trends Microbiol. 23: 567-576

2015
[59]

Davenport PW, Griﬃn JL, Welch M (2015) Quorum sensing is accompanied by global metabolic changes in the opportunistic human pathogen Pseudomonas aeruginosa. J. Bacteriol. 197: 2072-2082

2015
[60]

PLoS Comput

Boyle KE, Monaco H, van Ditmarsch D, Deforet M, Xavier JB (2015) Integration of metabolic and quorum sensing signals governing the decision to cooperate in a bacterial social trait. PLoS Comput. Biol. 11: e1004279

2015
[61]

Boyle KE, Monaco HT, Deforet M, Yan J, Wang Z, Rhee K, Xavier JB (2017) Metabolism and the evolution of social behavior. Mol. Biol. Evol. 34: 2367-2379

2017
[62]

Grote J, Krysciak D, Streit WR (2015) Phenotypic heterogeneity, a phenomenon that may explain why quorum sensing does not always result in truly homogenous cell be- havior. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 81: 5280-5289

2015
[63]

Popat R, Cornforth DM, McNally L, Brown SP (2015) Collective sensing and collective responses in quorum-sensing bacteria. J. R. Soc. Interface 12: 20140882

2015
[64]

Science 309: 2075-2078

Kussell E, Leibler S (2005) Phenotypic diversity, population growth, and information in ﬂuctuating environments. Science 309: 2075-2078. 24

2005
[65]

coli proteome utilization and unused protein costs across environments.PLoS Comput

O’Brien EJ, Utrilla J, Palsson BØ (2016) Quantiﬁcation and classiﬁcation of E. coli proteome utilization and unused protein costs across environments.PLoS Comput. Biol. 12: e1004998

2016
[66]

Mori M, Schink S, Erickson DW, Gerland U, Hwa T (2017) Quantifying the beneﬁt of a proteome reserve in ﬂuctuating environments. Nat. Commun. 8: 1225

2017
[67]

Lille SH, Pringle JR (1980) Reserve carbohydrate metabolism in Saccharomyces cere- visiae: responses to nutrient limitation. J. Bacteriol. 143: 1384-1394

1980
[68]

FEMS Microbiol

Fran¸ cios J, Parrou JL (2001) Reserve carbohydrates metabolism in the yeast Saccha- romyces cerevisiae. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 25: 125-145

2001
[69]

PLoS One 5: e14121

Estrela S, Gudelj I (2010) Evolution of cooperative cross-feeding could be less challeng- ing than originally thought. PLoS One 5: e14121

2010
[70]

Gardner A, West SA, Griﬃn AS (2007) Is bacterial persistence a social trait? PLoS One 2: e752

2007
[71]

Microb Ecol

Mulcahy LR, Isabella VM, Lewis K (2014) Pseudomonas aeruginosa bioﬁlms in disease. Microb Ecol. 68: 1-12

2014
[72]

Biomed Res Int

Rasamiravaka T, Labtani Q, Duez P, El Jaziri M (2015) The formation of bioﬁlms by Pseudomonas aeruginosa: a review of the natural and synthetic compounds interfering with control mechanisms. Biomed Res Int. 2015: 759348

2015
[73]

PLoS One 8: e78011

Biggs MB, Papin JA (2013) Novel multiscale modeling tool applied to Pseudomonas aeruginosa bioﬁlm formation. PLoS One 8: e78011

2013
[74]

BMC Syst

Chen J, Gomez JA, H¨ oﬀner K, Phalak P, Barton PI, Henson MA (2016) Spatiotemporal modeling of microbial metabolism. BMC Syst. Biol. 10: 21

2016
[75]

bioRxiv preprint doi:10.1101/441311

Zhang T, Parker A, Carlson RP, Stewart PS (2018) Flux-balance based modeling of bioﬁlm communities. bioRxiv preprint doi:10.1101/441311

2018 doi
[76]

BMC Systems Biology 9: 15

Cole JA, Kohler L, Hedhli J, Luthey-Schulten Z (2015) Spatially-resolved metabolic cooperativity within dense bacterial colonies. BMC Systems Biology 9: 15

2015
[77]

PLoS One 12: e0182570

Peterson JR, Cole JA, Luthey-Schulten Z (2017) Parametric studies of metabolic co- operativity in Escherichia coli colonies: strain and geometric conﬁnement eﬀects. PLoS One 12: e0182570

2017
[78]

coli T grown on agar identiﬁes two distinct cell pop- ulations with acetate cross-feeding

Wolfsberg E, Long CP, Antoniewicz MR (2018) Metabolism in dense microbial colonies: 13C metabolic ﬂux analysis of E. coli T grown on agar identiﬁes two distinct cell pop- ulations with acetate cross-feeding. Metab. Eng. 49: 242-247

2018
[79]

Cell 46: 436-448

ˇC´ ap M,ˇStˇ ep´ anek L, Harant K, V´ achov´ a L, Palkov´ a Z (2012) Cell diﬀerentiation within a yeast colony: metabolic and regulatory parallels with a tumor-aﬀected organism Mol. Cell 46: 436-448. 25

2012
[80]

Elife 8: e46735

Varahan S, Walvekar A, Sinha V, Krishna S, Laxman S (2019) Metabolic constraints drive self-organization of specialized cell groups. Elife 8: e46735

2019
[81]

PLOS One 13: e0191803

M¨ oller P, Liu X, Schuster S, Boley D (2018) Linear programming model can explain respiration of fermentation products. PLOS One 13: e0191803

2018
[82]

ACM Trans

Hindmarsh AC, Brown PN, Grant KE, Lee SL, Serban R, Shumaker DE, Woodward CS (2005) SUNDIALS: Suite of Nonlinear and Diﬀerential/Algebraic Equation Solvers. ACM Trans. Math. Softw. 31: 363-396

2005
[83]

Jones KD, Kompala DS (1999) Cybernetic model of the growth dynamics of Saccha- romyces cerevisiae in batch and continuous cultures. J. Biotechnol. 71: 105-131

1999
[84]

Nature 528: 99-104

Basan M, Hui S, Okano H, Zhang Z, Shen Y, Williamson JR, Hwa T (2015) Overﬂow metabolism in Escherichia coli results from eﬃcient proteome allocation. Nature 528: 99-104. 26

2015

Pith tools

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

[1] [35]

Tourigny DS (2020) Dynamic metabolic resource allocation based on the maximum entropy principle. J. Math. Biol. 80: 2395-2430

work page 2020

[2] [1]

Science 211: 1390-1396

Axelrod R, Hamilton WD (1981) The evolution of cooperation. Science 211: 1390-1396. 20

1981

[3] [2]

Chao L, Levin BR (1981) Structured habitats and the evolution of anticompetitor toxins in bacteria. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 78: 6324-6328

1981

[4] [3]

Nature 359: 826- 829

Nowak MA, May RM (1992) Evolutionary games and spatial chaos. Nature 359: 826- 829

1992

[5] [4]

Nature 445: 533-536

Hansen SK, Rainey PB, Haagensen JA, Molin S (2007) Evolution of species interactions in a bioﬁlm community. Nature 445: 533-536

2007

[6] [5]

Evolu- tion 64: 2166-2172

Harcombe W (2010) Novel cooperation experimentally evolved between species. Evolu- tion 64: 2166-2172

work page 2010

[7] [6]

PLoS Comput

Nadell CD, Foster KR, Xavier JB (2010) Emergence of spatial structure in cell groups and the evolution of cooperation. PLoS Comput. Biol. 6: e1000716

work page 2010

[8] [7]

Nature 428: 643-646

Hauert C, Doebeli M (2004) Spatial structure often inhibits the evolution of cooperation in the snowdrift game. Nature 428: 643-646

work page 2004