A Thermodynamic Analysis of Microbial Growth Experiments
Abstract
The common thread of energy release suggests that diverse microbial metabolic processes can be compared through thermodynamic analyses. The resulting energy and power requirements can provide quantitative constraints on habitability. Because previous thermodynamic analyses have focused on the minimum amount of energy needed for the growth of a microorganism or community, the focus of this study is to gain a fuller understanding of the microbial response to highly habitable conditions. This communication summarizes the results of a thermodynamic analysis of the energy and power consumed by microorganisms in experiments that were designed to optimize growth. Reports of microbial growth experiments taken from the literature were combined with speciation and standard state calculations to assess the overall Gibbs energy change during the experiments. Results show that similar numbers of cells (10(9) to 10(10) ) were produced in these experiments regardless of the duration of log phase growth (from <2 to >200 hours) or the total Gibbs energy change [from 1.3-29.6 kJ (mol electrons transferred)(1)]. As a result, optimal growth conditions appear to produce between 10(10) and 10(14) cells per watt of power consumed.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Many environmental effects on maintenance energy are not well constrained, and maintenance energy is still empirically derived.
“Energy demand, on the other hand, is slightly more complex, as many environmental effects on ME are not well constrained. This lack of knowledge presents limitations for developing accurate quantitative models; thus ME is still empirically derived (Shock and Holland, 2007; Smith and Shock, 2007).”
From The Astrobiology Primer v2.0 (2016) · cites this paper as Smith and Shock, 2007
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Domagal-Goldman, S. D., Wright, K. E., Domagal-Goldman, S. D., Wright, K. E., Adamala, K., Arina de la Rubia, L., Bond, J., Dartnell, L. R., Goldman, A. D., Lynch, K., et al. (2016) · Astrobiology · doi:10.1089/ast.2015.1460 · Cited by 136 · see citing works
“This lack of knowledge presents limitations for developing accurate quantitative models; thus ME is still empirically derived (Shock and Holland, 2007; Smith and Shock, 2007).”
Shock, E. L., & Holland, M. E. (2007) · Astrobiology · doi:10.1089/ast.2007.0137 · Cited by 63 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- Smith, J. N., & Shock, E. L.
- Affiliations
- Arizona State University (US)
- ORCID
- Shock, Everett L.
- Venue
- Astrobiology
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2007-12
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 891-904
- ISSN
- 1531-1074 (ISSN-L)
- 1557-8070
- OpenAlex
- W2043111083
- Cited by
- 12
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 0.40
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Astrobiology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Space Science and Extraterrestrial Life
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Origins and Evolution of Life
- Physical Sciences › Chemistry › Physical and Theoretical Chemistry › thermodynamics and calorimetric analyses
- Keywords
- microbial growth, energy consumption, power consumption, log phase growth, optimal growth conditions, speciation calculations
- MeSH terms
- Bacteria, Energy Metabolism, Thermodynamics, Ecosystem
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