2002
DOI: 10.1006/jtbi.2002.3101
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Estimating the Instability Parameters of Plasmid-Bearing Cells. I. Chemostat Culture

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
22
0

Year Published

2004
2004
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 25 publications
(22 citation statements)
references
References 40 publications
0
22
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The VS model is a major departure from other modeling approaches (Stewart and Levin 1977;Levin et al 1979;Levin 1980;Levin and Stewart 1980;Tavaré 1982, 1983;Freter et al 1983;Cooper et al 1987;Simonsen 1991;Proctor 1994;Tolker-Nielsen and Boe 1994;Boe 1996;Boe and Rasmussen 1996;Bergstrom et al 2000;Gasunov and Brilkov 2002;Wahl et al 2002;Tanaka et al 2003;Novozhilov et al 2005). The process noise included in the VS model represents the variability due to the environment, where the environment may be understood as the host itself and the host's growth environment (De Gelder et al 2007).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The VS model is a major departure from other modeling approaches (Stewart and Levin 1977;Levin et al 1979;Levin 1980;Levin and Stewart 1980;Tavaré 1982, 1983;Freter et al 1983;Cooper et al 1987;Simonsen 1991;Proctor 1994;Tolker-Nielsen and Boe 1994;Boe 1996;Boe and Rasmussen 1996;Bergstrom et al 2000;Gasunov and Brilkov 2002;Wahl et al 2002;Tanaka et al 2003;Novozhilov et al 2005). The process noise included in the VS model represents the variability due to the environment, where the environment may be understood as the host itself and the host's growth environment (De Gelder et al 2007).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The specific growth rates of introduced plasmid‐free ( x F ) and plasmid‐bearing ( x P ) bacteria were calculated as ρ −1 e α X N C and ρ −1 (1− c )(1− s ) e (α X N C +β N XB ), respectively, where ρ is the cell carbon content, e is the growth efficiency, c is the cost of bearing the plasmid, which is assumed to affect growth efficiency negatively (see also in Table 2), and s is the loss rate of plasmids from hosts, i.e. the relative segregation rate of plasmids (Bhattacharya & Roy, 1995; Ganusov & Brilkov, 2002). We also assumed that segregation generates viable plasmid‐free cells ( x F ) at the same rate as segregation.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Initial value of x P 10 6 cells mL À1 0.1 y F (0) Initial value of y F 10 6 cells mL À1 z y P (0) Initial value of y P 10 6 cells mL À1 0.0 y NC (0) Initial value of y NC 10 6 cells mL À1 z HR Host range of plasmids -0.1 z assumed to affect growth efficiency negatively (see also eqns 1 and 2 in Table 2), and s is the loss rate of plasmids from hosts, i.e. the relative segregation rate of plasmids (Bhattacharya & Roy, 1995;Ganusov & Brilkov, 2002). We also assumed that segregation generates viable plasmid-free cells (x F ) at the same rate as segregation.…”
Section: Resource Consumption and Xenobiotic Degradationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Consider three hypothetical plasmids: x, y, and Spread of conjugative plasmids in liquid culture is z. Plasmid x conjugates faster than plasmid y, but the often approximated through simple mass-action models trade-off causes slower growth of x-infected hosts. Plas-(Stewart and Levin 1977; Levin et al 1979; Bergmid z transfers only vertically, thereby causing the least strom et al Ganusov and Brilkov 2002;Pauls-host burden. The model predicts that x and y should son 2002).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%