Out-of-balance Growth Enables Cost-free Synthesis of the Flagellum and Other Proteins in a Single Bacterium

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

Garcia-Alcala, Kratz and Cluzel investigate to what extent our understanding of bacterial physiology in bulk experiments can be applied to single-cell observations. They find that intrinsic noise may be powerful enough to even inverse the trends found in the bulk. The authors hypothesize that the asymmetric distribution of ribosomes to daughter cells during cell division plays the dominant role in the intrinsic noise and is able to generate the observed phenomenon. They do not show it directly, but the data and its agreement with the model are sufficient to support this claim.

Strengths:

The experimental part is convincing: the positive correlation between the elongation rate and promoter activity of unnecessary protein is clear, as well as the negative correlation between the mean values while changing the promoter strength. This was demonstrated in both rich and poor media. The causality between the growth rate and the promoter activity was shown using the negative lag time of the cross-correlation function. A simple, reasonable model accounts well for the data. This paper demonstrates an interesting phenomenon and provides a plausible theory for it, advancing our understanding of bacterial physiology on the single-cell level.

Weaknesses:

(1) Mean-reversion timescales were assumed to be longer than the simulation time and much longer than the cell cycle time. It is not clear whether the results are robust in case mean-reversion timescales become of the order of the cell-cycle or smaller. If not, is there an argument for such practically infinite reversion timescales?

(2) It is not easy to understand the simulation part unless one reads Ref. [14]. k(t) is assumed Equation (1) from Reference [14]? Is it crucial that the ribosome noise appears only at the division? The ribosome noise strength \sigma_R=0.06 - is it lower or higher than the naively expected binomial division? Also, a more intuitive explanation of the Simpson paradox would help the reader.

(3) It would be useful for the reader to see the raw data and not only the filtered one to appreciate the measurement noise level.

(4) Negative lag time of the cross-correlation function is visible, but consider adding a statistical test for it.

(5) Can you make similar cross-correlation plots using the model? Can you infer by using it, whether the data agrees better with the assumption that ribosomal noise appears only at division or continuous fluctuations during the cell cycle?

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The manuscript by Garcia-Alcala et al. reports an interesting paradox: the cost of gene expression slows the population-average growth rate, whereas at the single-cell level, expression levels from these genes positively correlate with the growth rate. The effect is observed in the expression of flagellar genes and a gene under a synthetic promoter in E. coli. The findings are explained by the inheritance of growth factors, including ribosomes, during asymmetric division.

Strengths:

(1) The manuscript adds strength to an emerging body of literature showing that the population-level bacterial growth laws do not match correlations based on single-cell data. The evidence presented here is more striking than in previous works (such as Pavlou et al., Nat. Commun. 2025), as the trends in population-level data and single-cell data are reversed.

(2) A relatively simple model correctly explains the trends in the data.

Weaknesses:

(1) It is not clear whether flagellar proteins are expressed proportionally to the reporter signal. Furthermore, it is questionable if E. coli bacteria in the mother machine channels are flagellated. If they are, they could potentially swim out of the channels, which is not the case when they do not carry the MotA E98K mutation. The authors should provide some evidence that E. coli expresses the actual filament proteins in the channels.

(2) It is unclear what fraction of the total proteome mVenus represents in different measurements. Some quantification is needed (for example, using the Coomassie staining). Using f_U as high as 14.4% in simulations is questionable.

(3) The data from the MC4100 strain does not directly match the trends of MG1655. The justification for filtering out the low-frequency components of MC4100 is not particularly convincing. It appears unlikely that ribosomes or other growth factors partition significantly differently in the MC4100 strain than in the MG1655 strain. Further discussion and a plot similar to Figure 1 (Left) for this strain are warranted.

(4) The model needs to be described in more detail. A closed set of equations that has been simulated must be presented, along with all values of the model parameters and their sources. The authors should consider depositing their code on GitHub or another publicly accessible repository.