Table 2.

Scaling of thermodynamic efficiency and energy fluxes in microbial growth

Y	X	Slope (CI${}_{95\%}$)	Intercept (CI${}_{95\%}$)	Pearson’s r	P value	n	Fig.
η	μED	–0.476 (–0.719, –0.271)	–1.443 (–1.579, –1.306)	–0.486	<0.001	65	Fig. 2A
η	Y	0.804 (0.491, 1.257)	–0.621 (–0.888, –0.353)	0.416	<0.001	100	Fig. 2B
$-Y_{ED}^{\mathit{cat}}\mathrm{\Delta }{G}^{\mathit{cat}}$	μED	–0.309 (–0.753, 0.046)	1.685 (1.490, 1.881)	–0.217	>0.050	65	Fig. 3A
$Y\mathrm{\Delta }{G}^{an}$	μED	–0.871 (–1.324, –0.559)	0.203 (–0.007, 0.414)	–0.526	<0.001	65	Fig. 3B
$-(Y\mathrm{\Delta }{G}^{an})/\mathrm{\Delta }{G}^{\mathit{cat}}$	Y	0.720 (0.271, 1.502)	–0.766 (–1.137, –0.394)	0.277	<0.01	100	Fig. 3C
λ	Y	–1.137 (–1.167, –1.108)	–0.183 (–0.208, –0.158)	–0.992	<0.001	100	Fig. 3D
μ	Y	2.750 (1.043, 4.932)	0.873 (–1.558, 3.304)	0.214	>0.05	65	Fig. 4A
${\mu }_{ED}$	Y	–2.021 (–3.450, –1.352)	–2.005 (–2.705, –1.305)	–0.449	<0.001	65	Fig. 4B

All the scaling relations, $Y=a{X}^b$, were fitted through a major axis regression in a log–log scale. Here, we report the exponent b (i.e., slope in the log–log plot) and the Pearson’s coefficient r. We also report the number n of observations.