Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 231

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

LESS IS MORE: SELECTIVE ADVANTAGES CAN EXPLAIN THE PREVALENT LOSS OF BIOSYNTHETIC GENES IN BACTERIA: ADAPTIVE LOSS OF BIOSYNTHETIC GENES IN BACTERIA

D'Souza, Glen, Waschina, Silvio, Pande, Samay, Bohl, Katrin, Kaleta, Christoph, Kost, Christian·2014·Evolution

Abstract

Bacteria that have adapted to nutrient-rich, stable environments are typically characterized by reduced genomes. The loss of biosynthetic genes frequently renders these lineages auxotroph, hinging their survival on an environmental uptake of certain metabolites. The evolutionary forces that drive this genome degradation, however, remain elusive. Our analysis of 949 metabolic networks revealed auxotrophies are likely highly prevalent in both symbiotic and free-living bacteria. To unravel whether selective advantages can account for the rampant loss of anabolic genes, we systematically determined the fitness consequences that result from deleting conditionally essential biosynthetic genes from the genomes of Escherichia coli and Acinetobacter baylyi in the presence of the focal nutrient. Pairwise competition experiments with each of 20 mutants auxotrophic for different amino acids, vitamins, and nucleobases against the prototrophic wild type unveiled a pronounced, concentration-dependent growth advantage of around 13% for virtually all mutants tested. Individually deleting different genes from the same biosynthesis pathway entailed gene-specific fitness consequences and loss of the same biosynthetic genes from the genomes of E. coli and A. baylyi differentially affected the fitness of the resulting auxotrophic mutants. Taken together, our findings suggest adaptive benefits could drive the loss of conditionally essential biosynthetic genes.

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 · 10.1111/evo.12468

Cites

4 of 4 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 4 references

Cited by

See all 231

Metadata

Authors
D'Souza, G., Waschina, S., Pande, S., Bohl, K., Kaleta, C., & Kost, C.
Venue
Evolution
Published
2014-07-09
Volume
68
Issue
9
Pages
2559-2570
ISSN
0014-3820 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1579467601
Cited by
231
References
4
FWCI
9.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: LESS IS MORE: SELECTIVE ADVANTAGES CAN EXPLAIN THE PREVALENT LOSS OF BIOSYNTHETIC GENES IN BACTERIA: ADAPTIVE LOSS OF BIOSYNTHETIC GENES IN BACTERIA. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/evo.12468
The paper
D'Souza, G., Waschina, S., Pande, S., Bohl, K., Kaleta, C., & Kost, C. (2014). LESS IS MORE: SELECTIVE ADVANTAGES CAN EXPLAIN THE PREVALENT LOSS OF BIOSYNTHETIC GENES IN BACTERIA: ADAPTIVE LOSS OF BIOSYNTHETIC GENES IN BACTERIA. Evolution. https://doi.org/10.1111/evo.12468

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.