Cited by 162Evolution and Genetic DynamicsLanguage and cultural evolutionPhilosophy and History of Science

A Comparison of Methods to Measure Fitness in Escherichia coli

Open access
Wiser, Michael J., Lenski, Richard E.·2015·PLOS ONE

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

In order to characterize the dynamics of adaptation, it is important to be able to quantify how a population's mean fitness changes over time. Such measurements are especially important in experimental studies of evolution using microbes. The Long-Term Evolution Experiment (LTEE) with Escherichia coli provides one such system in which mean fitness has been measured by competing derived and ancestral populations. The traditional method used to measure fitness in the LTEE and many similar experiments, though, is subject to a potential limitation. As the relative fitness of the two competitors diverges, the measurement error increases because the less-fit population becomes increasingly small and cannot be enumerated as precisely. Here, we present and employ two alternatives to the traditional method. One is based on reducing the fitness differential between the competitors by using a common reference competitor from an intermediate generation that has intermediate fitness; the other alternative increases the initial population size of the less-fit, ancestral competitor. We performed a total of 480 competitions to compare the statistical properties of estimates obtained using these alternative methods with those obtained using the traditional method for samples taken over 50,000 generations from one of the LTEE populations. On balance, neither alternative method yielded measurements that were more precise than the traditional method.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0126210

Cites

28 of 29 references verified1 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

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?

  • In one E. coli study with 8 different rpoB mutations, the relative fitness ranged between 0.7 and 1.0.

    “In one E. coli study with 8 different rpoB mutations it has been shown that the relative fitness can lay anywhere between 0.7 and 1.0 [54].”

    From Efficient, robust, and versatile fluctuation data analysis using MLE MUtation Rate calculator (mlemur) (2023) · cites this paper as [54]

    The Materials and Methods section describes fitness measurements for evolved E. coli populations, and Table 3 in Results and Discussion reports fitness values from evolution experiments. Neither addresses eight rpoB mutations or a relative-fitness range of 0.7–1.0; searches for those terms and rifampicin resistance found no matching passage in our copy. Page numbers were not provided. (LLM, conf=0.75)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [1]Lenski RE, Rose MR, Simpson SC, Tadler SC. Long-term experimental evolution in Escherichia coli. I. Adaptation and divergence during 2,000 generations. Am Nat. 1991; 138: 1315– 1341. 10.2307/2462549 2053591 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wiser, M. J., & Lenski, R. E.
Affiliations
Michigan State University (US)
Corresponding author
Wiser, Michael J.
Venue
PLOS ONE
Published
2015-05-11
Volume
10
Issue
5
Pages
e0126210
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2223866672
Cited by
162
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 3
FWCI
6.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (0939454, 1019989)
  • Michigan State University
  • College of Engineering, Michigan State University
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Evolution and Genetic Dynamics
  • Social Sciences › Cultural Studies › Language and cultural evolution
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Philosophy and History of Science
Keywords
Escherichia coli, long-term evolution experiment, experimental evolution, population competition, measurement error, population size
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Physiological, Arabinose, Biological Assay, Culture Media, Escherichia coli, Biological Evolution, Glucose, Stress, Physiological, Genetic Fitness, Bacterial Load

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