The growth rate-dependent regulation of cell size, ribosomal content, and metabolic efficiency follows a common pattern in unicellular organisms: with increasing growth rates, cell size and ribosomal content increase and a shift to energetically inefficient metabolism takes place. The latter two phenomena are also observed in fast growing tumour cells and cell lines. These patterns suggest a fundamental principle of design. In biology such designs can often be understood as the result of the optimization of fitness. Here we show that in basic models of self-replicating systems these patterns are the consequence of maximizing the growth rate. Whereas most models of cellular growth consider a part of physiology, for instance only metabolism, the approach presented here integrates several subsystems to a complete self-replicating system. Such models can yield fundamentally different optimal strategies. In particular, it is shown how the shift in metabolic efficiency originates from a tradeoff between investments in enzyme synthesis and metabolic yields for alternative catabolic pathways. The models elucidate how the optimization of growth by natural selection shapes growth strategies.

This paper examines whether the in vivo behavior of yeast glycolysis can be understood in terms of the in vitro kinetic properties of the constituent enzymes. In nongrowing, anaerobic, compressed Saccharomyces cerevisiae the values of the kinetic parameters of most glycolytic enzymes were determined. For the other enzymes appropriate literature values were collected. By inserting these values into a kinetic model for glycolysis, fluxes and metabolites were calculated. Under the same conditions fluxes and metabolite levels were measured.In our first model, branch reactions were ignored. This model failed to reach the stable steady state that was observed in the experimental flux measurements. Introduction of branches towards trehalose, glycogen, glycerol and succinate did allow such a steady state. The predictions of this branched model were compared with the empirical behavior. Half of the enzymes matched their predicted flux in vivo within a factor of 2. For the other enzymes it was calculated what deviation between in vivo and in vitro kinetic characteristics could explain the discrepancy between in vitro rate and in vivo flux.