Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 512

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 41 of the 41 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Carbon nutrition of Escherichia coli in the mouse intestine

Open access
Chang, Dong-Eun, Smalley, Darren J., Tucker, Don L., Leatham, Mary P., Norris, Wendy E., Stevenson, Sarah J., Anderson, April B., Grissom, Joe E., Laux, David C., Cohen, Paul S., Conway, Tyrrell·2004·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract

Whole-genome expression profiling revealed Escherichia coli MG1655 genes induced by growth on mucus, conditions designed to mimic nutrient availability in the mammalian intestine. Most were nutritional genes corresponding to catabolic pathways for nutrients found in mucus. We knocked out several pathways and tested the relative fitness of the mutants for colonization of the mouse intestine in competition with their wild-type parent. We found that only mutations in sugar pathways affected colonization, not phospholipid and amino acid catabolism, not gluconeogenesis, not the tricarboxylic acid cycle, and not the pentose phosphate pathway. Gluconate appeared to be a major carbon source used by E. coli MG1655 to colonize, having an impact on both the initiation and maintenance stages. N -acetylglucosamine and N -acetylneuraminic acid appeared to be involved in initiation, but not maintenance. Glucuronate, mannose, fucose, and ribose appeared to be involved in maintenance, but not initiation. The in vitro order of preference for these seven sugars paralleled the relative impact of the corresponding metabolic lesions on colonization: gluconate > N -acetylglucosamine > N- acetylneuraminic acid = glucuronate > mannose > fucose > ribose. The results of this systematic analysis of nutrients used by E. coli MG1655 to colonize the mouse intestine are intriguing in light of the nutrient-niche hypothesis, which states that the ecological niches within the intestine are defined by nutrient availability. Because humans are presumably colonized with different commensal strains, differences in nutrient availability may provide an open niche for infecting E. coli pathogens in some individuals and a barrier to infection in others.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1073/pnas.0307888101

Cites

41 of 41 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 41 references

Cited by

See all 512

Metadata

Authors
Chang, D.-E., Smalley, D. J., Tucker, D. L., Leatham, M. P., Norris, W. E., Stevenson, S. J., Anderson, A. B., Grissom, J. E., Laux, D. C., Cohen, P. S., & Conway, T.
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2004-05-03
Volume
101
Issue
19
Pages
7427-7432
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
OpenAlex
W2118085294
Cited by
512
References
41
FWCI
8.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Carbon nutrition of Escherichia coli in the mouse intestine. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1073/pnas.0307888101
The paper
Chang, D.-E., Smalley, D. J., Tucker, D. L., Leatham, M. P., Norris, W. E., Stevenson, S. J., Anderson, A. B., Grissom, J. E., Laux, D. C., Cohen, P. S., & Conway, T. (2004). Carbon nutrition of Escherichia coli in the mouse intestine. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0307888101

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.