↓ Skip to main content

Biphasic growth dynamics control cell division in Caulobacter crescentus

Overview of attention for article published in Nature Microbiology, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
15 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
43 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
75 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Biphasic growth dynamics control cell division in Caulobacter crescentus
Published in
Nature Microbiology, July 2017
DOI 10.1038/nmicrobiol.2017.116
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shiladitya Banerjee, Klevin Lo, Matthew K. Daddysman, Alan Selewa, Thomas Kuntz, Aaron R. Dinner, Norbert F. Scherer

Abstract

Cell size is specific to each species and impacts cell function. Various phenomenological models for cell size regulation have been proposed, but recent work in bacteria has suggested an 'adder' model, in which a cell increments its size by a constant amount between each division. However, the coupling between cell size, shape and constriction remains poorly understood. Here, we investigate size control and the cell cycle dependence of bacterial growth using multigenerational cell growth and shape data for single Caulobacter crescentus cells. Our analysis reveals a biphasic mode of growth: a relative timer phase before constriction where cell growth is correlated to its initial size, followed by a pure adder phase during constriction. Cell wall labelling measurements reinforce this biphasic model, in which a crossover from uniform lateral growth to localized septal growth is observed. We present a mathematical model that quantitatively explains this biphasic 'mixer' model for cell size control.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 75 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 75 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 32%
Researcher 14 19%
Student > Bachelor 9 12%
Professor 5 7%
Student > Master 5 7%
Other 10 13%
Unknown 8 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 19 25%
Physics and Astronomy 14 19%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 12 16%
Engineering 6 8%
Immunology and Microbiology 4 5%
Other 9 12%
Unknown 11 15%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 September 2017.
All research outputs
#4,321,591
of 24,503,376 outputs
Outputs from Nature Microbiology
#1,525
of 1,888 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#71,062
of 320,532 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature Microbiology
#47
of 51 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,503,376 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,888 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 95.9. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 320,532 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 51 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.