Fluorescence flow cytometry is increasingly being used to quantify single-cell expression distributions in bacteria in high-throughput. However, there has been no systematic investigation into the best practices for quantitative analysis of such data, what systematic biases exist, and what accuracy and sensitivity can be obtained. We investigate these issues by measuring the same E. coli strains carrying fluorescent reporters using both flow cytometry and microscopic setups and systematically comparing the resulting single-cell expression distributions. Using these results, we develop methods for rigorous quantitative inference of single-cell expression distributions from fluorescence flow cytometry data. First, we present a Bayesian mixture model to separate debris from viable cells using all scattering signals. Second, we show that cytometry measurements of fluorescence are substantially affected by autofluorescence and shot noise, which can be mistaken for intrinsic noise in gene expression, and present methods to correct for these using calibration measurements. Finally, we show that because forward-and side-scatter signals scale non-linearly with cell size, and are also affected by a substantial shot noise component that cannot be easily calibrated unless independent measurements of cell size are available, it is not possible to accurately estimate the variability in the sizes of individual cells using flow cytometry measurements alone. To aid other researchers with quantitative analysis of flow cytometry expression data in bacteria, we distribute E-Flow, an open-source R package that implements our methods for filtering debris and for estimating true biological expression means and variances from the fluorescence signal. The package is

Fluorescence flow cytometry is a highly attractive technology for quantifying single-cell expression distributions in bacteria in high-throughput. However, so far there has been no systematic investigation of the best practices for quantitative analysis of such data, what systematic biases exist, and what accuracy and sensitivity can be obtained. We here investigate these issues by systematically comparing flow cytometry measurements of fluorescent reporters in E. coli with measurements of the same strains in microscopic setups and develop a method for rigorous quantitative analysis of fluorescence flow cytometry data.We find that forward and side scatter cannot be used to reliably estimate cell size in bacteria. Second, we show that cytometry measurements contain a large shot noise component that can be easily mistaken for intrinsic noise in gene expression, and show how calibration measurements can be used to correct for this measurement shot noise.To aid other researchers with quantitative analysis of flow cytometry expression data in bacteria, we distribute E-Flow, an open-source R package that implements our methods for filtering cells based on forward and side scatter, and for estimating true biological expression means and variances from the fluorescence signal. The package is available at https://github.com/vanNimwegenLab/E-Flow.

Although it is well appreciated that gene expression is inherently noisy and that transcriptional noise is encoded in a promoter's sequence, little is known about the variation in transcriptional noise across growth conditions. Using flow cytometry we here quantify transcriptional noise in E. coli genome-wide across 8 growth conditions, and find that noise and gene regulation are intimately coupled. Apart from a growth-rate dependent lower bound on noise, we find that individual promoters show highly condition-dependent noise and that condition-dependent expression noise is shaped by noise propagation from regulators to their targets. A simple model of noise propagation identifies TFs that most contribute to both conditionspecific and condition-independent noise propagation. The overall correlation structure of sequence and expression properties of E. coli genes uncovers that genes are organized along two principal axes, with the first axis sorting genes by their mean expression and evolutionary rate of their coding regions, and the second axis sorting genes by their expression noise, the number of regulatory inputs in their promoter, and their expression plasticity.