Cited by 122Evolution and Genetic DynamicsMicrobial Metabolic Engineering and BioproductionPhilosophy and History of Science

The functional basis of adaptive evolution in chemostats

Open access
Gresham, David, Hong, Jungeui·2014·FEMS Microbiology Reviews

Abstract

Two of the central problems in biology are determining the molecular basis of adaptive evolution and understanding how cells regulate their growth. The chemostat is a device for culturing cells that provides great utility in tackling both of these problems: it enables precise control of the selective pressure under which organisms evolve and it facilitates experimental control of cell growth rate. The aim of this review is to synthesize results from studies of the functional basis of adaptive evolution in long-term chemostat selections using Escherichia coli and Saccharomyces cerevisiae. We describe the principle of the chemostat, provide a summary of studies of experimental evolution in chemostats, and use these studies to assess our current understanding of selection in the chemostat. Functional studies of adaptive evolution in chemostats provide a unique means of interrogating the genetic networks that control cell growth, which complements functional genomic approaches and quantitative trait loci (QTL) mapping in natural populations. An integrated approach to the study of adaptive evolution that accounts for both molecular function and evolutionary processes is critical to advancing our understanding of evolution. By renewing efforts to integrate these two research programs, experimental evolution in chemostats is ideally suited to extending the functional synthesis to the study of genetic networks.

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 · 10.1111/1574-6976.12082

Cites

135 of 135 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gresham, D., & Hong, J.
Affiliations
New York University (US)
Corresponding author
Gresham, David
Venue
FEMS Microbiology Reviews
Published
2014-09
Volume
39
Issue
1
Pages
n/a-n/a
ISSN
0168-6445 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2038785521
Cited by
122
References
135
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 1
FWCI
1.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • FEMS Microbiology Reviews (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Office of Extramural Research, National Institutes of Health (GM107466)
  • National Science Foundation (MCB-1244219)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Evolution and Genetic Dynamics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Microbial Metabolic Engineering and Bioproduction
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Philosophy and History of Science
Keywords
adaptive evolution, chemostat, experimental evolution, cell growth regulation, gene networks, Escherichia coli, Saccharomyces cerevisiae, selection, growth rate, long-term selection, functional genomics
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Physiological, Escherichia coli, Biological Evolution, Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Bioreactors

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