On paradoxes between optimal growth, metabolic control analysis, and flux balance analysis

In Microbiology it is often assumed that growth rate is maximal. This may be taken to suggest that the dependence of the growth rate on every enzyme activity is at the top of an inverse-parabolic function, i.e. that all flux control coefficients should equal zero. This might seem to imply that the sum of these flux control coefficients equals zero. According to the summation law of Metabolic Control Analysis (MCA) the sum of flux control coefficients should equal 1 however. And in Flux Balance Analysis (FBA) catabolism is often limited by a hard bound, causing catabolism to fully control the fluxes, again in apparent contrast with a flux control coefficient of zero. Here we resolve these paradoxes (apparent contradictions) in an analysis that uses the 'Edinburgh pathway', the 'Amsterdam pathway', as well as a generic metabolic network providing the building blocks or Gibbs energy for microbial growth. We review and show that (i) optimization depends on so-called enzyme control coefficients rather than the 'catalytic control coefficients' of MCA's summation law, (ii) when optimization occurs at fixed total protein, the former differ from the latter to the extent that they may all become equal to zero in the optimum state, (iii) in more realistic scenarios of optimization where catalytically inert biomass is compensating or maintenance metabolism is taken into consideration, the optimum enzyme concentrations should not be expected to equal those that maximize the specific growth rate, (iv) optimization may be in terms of yield rather than specific growth rate, which resolves the paradox because the sum of catalytic control coefficients on yield equals 0, (v) FBA effectively maximizes growth yield, and for yield the summation law states 0 rather than 1, thereby removing the paradox, (vi) furthermore, FBA then comes more often to a 'hard optimum' defined by a maximum catabolic flux and a catabolic-enzyme control coefficient of 1. The trade-off between maintenance metabolism and growth is highlighted as worthy of further analysis.