Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 215

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Physiological Studies of Escherichia coli Strain MG1655: Growth Defects and Apparent Cross-Regulation of Gene Expression

Open access
Soupene, Eric, van Heeswijk, Wally C., Plumbridge, Jacqueline, Stewart, Valley, Bertenthal, Daniel, Lee, Haidy, Prasad, Gyaneshwar, Paliy, Oleg, Charernnoppakul, Parinya, Kustu, Sydney·2003·Journal of Bacteriology

Abstract

Escherichia coli strain MG1655 was chosen for sequencing because the few mutations it carries ( ilvG rfb-50 rph-1 ) were considered innocuous. However, it has a number of growth defects. Internal pyrimidine starvation due to polarity of the rph-1 allele on pyrE was problematic in continuous culture. Moreover, the isolate of MG1655 obtained from the E. coli Genetic Stock Center also carries a large deletion around the fnr (fumarate-nitrate respiration) regulatory gene. Although studies on DNA microarrays revealed apparent cross-regulation of gene expression between galactose and lactose metabolism in the Stock Center isolate of MG1655, this was due to the occurrence of mutations that increased lacY expression and suppressed slow growth on galactose. The explanation for apparent cross-regulation between galactose and N -acetylglucosamine metabolism was similar. By contrast, cross-regulation between lactose and maltose metabolism appeared to be due to generation of internal maltosaccharides in lactose-grown cells and may be physiologically significant. Lactose is of restricted distribution: it is normally found together with maltosaccharides, which are starch degradation products, in the mammalian intestine. Strains designated MG1655 and obtained from other sources differed from the Stock Center isolate and each other in several respects. We confirmed that use of other E . coli strains with MG1655-based DNA microarrays works well, and hence these arrays can be used to study any strain of interest. The responses to nitrogen limitation of two urinary tract isolates and an intestinal commensal strain isolated recently from humans were remarkably similar to those of MG1655.

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 · 10.1128/jb.185.18.5611-5626.2003

Cites

1 of 1 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 1 references

Cited by

See all 215

Metadata

Authors
Soupene, E., van Heeswijk, W. C., Plumbridge, J., Stewart, V., Bertenthal, D., Lee, H., Prasad, G., Paliy, O., Charernnoppakul, P., & Kustu, S.
Venue
Journal of Bacteriology
Published
2003-09-15
Volume
185
Issue
18
Pages
5611-5626
ISSN
  • 0021-9193 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-5530
OpenAlex
W2150473143
Cited by
215
References
1
FWCI
3.01
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: Physiological Studies of Escherichia coli Strain MG1655: Growth Defects and Apparent Cross-Regulation of Gene Expression. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1128/jb.185.18.5611-5626.2003
The paper
Soupene, E., van Heeswijk, W. C., Plumbridge, J., Stewart, V., Bertenthal, D., Lee, H., Prasad, G., Paliy, O., Charernnoppakul, P., & Kustu, S. (2003). Physiological Studies of Escherichia coli Strain MG1655: Growth Defects and Apparent Cross-Regulation of Gene Expression. Journal of Bacteriology. https://doi.org/10.1128/jb.185.18.5611-5626.2003

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.