Ramkrishna, Kompala, and Tsao proposed the cybernetic model of microbial growth, in which cells allocate enzyme synthesis resources according to a matching rule that mimics rational decision-making. The matching rule was later shown to be optimal under general assumptions about the underlying return-on-investment structure, yet the specific objective the cell maximizes, and the constraints bounding that choice, were never written down as an explicit economic decision. Here we supply that missing decision, recasting cybernetic enzyme-synthesis control as a consumer choice problem from microeconomic theory: the cell allocates a limited proteome budget among competing catabolic enzymes as a linear program (LP), maximizing a linear growth utility subject to a linear proteome budget constraint. Because the utility is linear, the LP's solution is geometric: whenever the iso-utility line's slope differs from the budget constraint's, the optimum is a corner, and the entire proteome budget is allocated to the enzyme for the single most profitable substrate. Corner solutions correspond to diauxic growth, and sequential substrate consumption follows from the choice of corner rather than a distinct regulatory mechanism. Only when the two slopes coincide does the optimum spread across the entire budget line instead of concentrating at a single corner; this degenerate case underlies simultaneous substrate use. Using only parameters estimated independently from single-substrate experiments, the LP-derived cybernetic variables reproduced the diauxic and triauxic batch growth of Klebsiella oxytoca on glucose-xylose and glucose-xylose-lactose mixtures, achieving a fit comparable to the classical matching law. Thus, sequential substrate use is the generic outcome of growth-maximizing specialization under perfect substitutability, and co-utilization is the degenerate case of equal profitability.
🌊
