Main

November 28, 2007

Update: kin selection in plants and bacteria?

Two papers I've discussed that seem to show the importance of kin selection in plants and bacteria merit some additional commentary.

Susan Dudley, an author of the plant paper, was just here for a seminar, at my invitation. Someone in the audience (Jeannine Cavender-Bares, but it's not her fault if I'm misinterpreting her) raised an interesting possibility. Could the results Dudley reported (differences in root growth depending on whether neighboring plants are more or less related) be the result of roots sensing the genetic diversity of roots around them , rather than relatedness per se? This could actually be a possible mechanism of predicting relatedness without a plant needing to "know" what genotype it itself is. If three neighboring plants are identical to each other, (as indicated, perhaps, by similar chemicals exuded from their roots), maybe a bunch of seeds from the same mother plant fell in the same place, and the plant detecting the chemicals is also from the same mother plant. It should be possible to test this hypothesis by seeing how a plant of genotype A responds to 3 plants of genotypes A vs. B, (same diversity but high vs. low relatedness) and also three different genotypes A,B,C (high diversity but intermediate relatedness).

Meanwhile, John Dennehy calls our attention to a post by Rosie Redfield, who comments on the "quorum-sensing" paper I reviewed recently. She notes that the Diggle paper ignores another possible reason bacteria might release and measure "quorum-sensing signals", namely, measuring how fast an excreted enzyme disappears due to diffusion or fluid flow. She published this idea a few years ago. If you're a bacterium in a fast-moving stream, there's no point in releasing enzymes, even if you have a lot of clone-mates nearby, because the enzymes will be washed away before they can do anything useful. On the other hand, maybe even a single cell could benefit from releasing enzymes if it's in a little crevice somewhere with no fluid flow. (Has anyone manipulated fluid flow around immobilized quorum-sensing bacteria?)

Redfield also points out that the "high relatedness" treatment may be unrealistic -- essentially pure cultures, so Hamilton's r = 1. Manipulating relatedness in a way that is more representative of the real world would be nice. For example, earlier I discussed an experiment that used a thicker or thinner culture medium to control ease of movement. A thicker medium would lead to greater relatedness, as dividing cells would stay near each other.

Redfield is also the author of this gem, providing an alternative view of horizontal gene transfer in bacteria: Genes for breakfast: The have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too of bacterial transformation. J Hered 84: 400-404

November 16, 2007

Communication doesn't automatically prevent cheating

There are enough examples of ‘‘cheating’’ in bacteria ... that mindless obedience to such [quorum-sensing] chemical signals cannot be assumed. Mindlessness can be assumed, but not obedience. -- Denison et al. (2003) Ecology 84:838-845
Millions of cooperating cells can do things far beyond the ability of an individual cell. This is most obvious in multicellular organisms, whose cells cooperate because they are all genetically identical, or nearly so. Genetically diverse populations of cells could often benefit from cooperating, but do they? For example, the mixed bacteria populations associated with plant roots might benefit from keeping the plant healthy, so that it can continue to feed them with its root exudates. But for this to happen, they need some method of coordinating their plant-benefiting activities. Furthermore, cells whose genes lead to this form of cooperation must, on average, survive and reproduce more than "cheaters" who don't invest in cooperative activities. Otherwise, cooperative traits will disappear.

Quorum sensing, an exchange of chemical signals among bacteria, can solve the coordination problem. But this week's paper Cooperation and conflict in quorum-sensing bacterial populations shows that quorum sensing doesn't automatically solve the problem of cheaters. The paper is by Stephen Diggle, Ashleigh Griffin, Genevieve Campbell, and Stuart West and published in Nature.

Continue reading "Communication doesn't automatically prevent cheating" »

November 01, 2007

Group selection is dead; get over it!

It is the sort of thing that people like, and want, to believe. Thus, though better theories supplant it in scientific usage, we may be certain that the 'hypothesis' will persist for a while as an element of folk-science. Eventually, that remnant, too, may vanish in light of discordant facts, and the essential imagery of this once-scientific hypothesis will recede to a revered position in the popular environmental ethic, where it doubtless will do much good.

PZ Meyers suggests that David Sloan Wilson has "made a persuasive case for group selection (but then [he admits], I'm already partial to the idea anyway). " This partiality is surprisingly common, despite the lack of empirical evidence that group selection (as opposed to kin selection) is of more than negligible importance as an evolutionary force in natural ecosystems.

Continue reading "Group selection is dead; get over it!" »

October 27, 2007

R! How can relatedness be negative?

Hamilton's equation for predicting the evolution of altruism is widely misunderstood. A simple diagram from a classic paper can help.
JesusMo2.jpg
Source: Jesus and Mo

You sank in the opinion of your fellow-men… by leaving your money in a capricious manner without strict regard to degrees of kin...
There wasn't much good i' being so rich… if she'd got none but husband's kin to leave it to.

– The Mill on the Floss

This week I will discuss two classic papers on how relatedness affects the evolution of social behavior. Altruism towards relatives is widely recognized, but W.D. Hamilton was apparently the first to make quantitative predictions of how relatedness would affect the evolution of altruism. In 1964, he published two papers on “The genetical evolution of social behavior” (J. Theor. Biol. 7:1-52). Hamilton’s rule c < r b is now widely known, but also widely misunderstood. The rule states that a gene causing some altruistic behavior (donating blood, say) may spread if the cost of the activity is low enough, and if it preferentially benefits others who carry the same gene, typically because they are genetically related. The cost to the donor and benefit to the recipient are c and b, both measured in fitness units (average increase or decrease in reproduction, due to the altruistic activity). But what is r?

Wikipedia says r is the “coefficient of relatedness.” This is consistent with J.B.S. Haldane’s famous joke: “I would lay down my life for two brothers [1/2] or eight cousins [1/8].” But this definition is not necessarily right. By the correct definition, r can even be negative!

Continue reading "R! How can relatedness be negative?" »

October 02, 2007

Menopause in whales

Someone who visited my recent blog on evolutionary aspects of menopause in humans led me to this short article in TREE (briefly discussed in the blog Gene Expression), which notes that, in many whales, female "reproduction ceases at approximately 40 years of age, although females routinely live on for several more decades." It's suggested that they help their daughters by providing wisdom.

August 17, 2007

Almost a no-brainer

How sophisticated behavior would you expect from an animal with a brain as small as a wasp's? Few, if any, female wasps have read David Lack's classic paper on the optimum number of eggs to lay, or even John Dennehy's clear summary of it. This week's paper asks whether they, nonetheless, adjust egg numbers optimally in response to competition from other wasps and resource availability.

"Encountering competitors reduces clutch size and increases offspring size in a parasitoid with female–female fighting" was written by Marlene Goubault, Alexandra Mack, and Ian Hardy, of the University of Nottingham, and published in Proceedings of the Royal Society.

Continue reading "Almost a no-brainer" »

August 03, 2007

Left behind: social amoebae

This week's paper, published in Science (317:679) is "Immune-like phagocyte activity in the social amoeba" by Guokai Chen, Olga Zhuchenko, and Adam Kuspa of the Baylor College of Medicine.

Cells of the social amoeba, Dictyostyleium discoideum forage individually, but eventually group together into a "slug", which crawls through the soil for days before eventually forming a spore-tipped stalk. Previous work with this species has looked at conflicts of interest over which cells have to sacrifice future reproduction (as spores) and become part of the stalk. This week's paper uncovers another example of apparent altruism in Dictyostelium, which may shed light on the evolution of a key part of our immune system.

As a Dictyostelium slug crawls through the soil, some cells are left behind. Are these just random sluggards? Or do they function like human phagocytes, the immune system cells that gobble up bacteria?

Continue reading "Left behind: social amoebae" »

July 28, 2007

Begging: the question

My wife and I have a bird feeder outside our kitchen window. Yesterday I saw an adult male cardinal feeding some of the seed to an immature cardinal not much smaller than he was. I guess it's hard to say "no", but should he have?

This week's paper, "The adaptive value of parental responsiveness to nestling begging" by Uri Gordzinski and Arnon Lotem, published online in Proceedings of the Royal Society, may have answered this question.

Continue reading "Begging: the question" »

June 27, 2007

Individual and kin selection in legume-rhizobium mutualism

OK, I've been critiquing other people's work for a while. Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to critique something I've written. It's the summary for a grant proposal I'm about to submit. It will be reviewed by ecologists and/or evolutionary biologists, but they're not likely to be specialists in legume-rhizobium symbiosis. So if something isn't clear to an intelligent but nonspecialist audience, you'll let me know, right? If you're not all too busy reading the many interesting evolution articles in today's New York Times, that is. By the way, the great Myxococcus xanthus photo in Carl Zimmer's article is from Supriya Kadam, who did her PhD with Greg Velicer and just finished a year as a postdoc in my lab.

Continue reading "Individual and kin selection in legume-rhizobium mutualism" »

June 18, 2007

Can plants recognize kin?

This week's paper is "Kin recognition in an annual plant", by Susan Dudley and Amanda File of McMaster University, just published online in Biology Letters.

Researchers in several countries have recently shown that roots respond differently to another root from the same plant than they do to a root from a different plant. Typically, they grow more aggressively towards a neighbor's root than towards one of their own. But what if the neighbor is a close relative?

Continue reading "Can plants recognize kin?" »

May 14, 2007

Evolution of babysitting in bluebirds

Major transitions in evolution have often involved loss of independence, as discussed last week. Most female bees work to increase their mother’s reproduction, rather than laying eggs themselves. Less extreme examples of helping others reproduce are known in some animals. “Kin selection” favors helping relatives, if the cost of helping is less than the benefit to the one helped, times their relatedness to the helper. This is known as Hamilton’s Rule. As Haldane put it, “I would jump into a river to save two brothers or eight cousins.” “Cost” and “benefit” are measured in number of offspring and “relatedness” is relative to one’s usual competitors. If surrounded by cousins, Hamilton’s Rule would lead to helping only siblings.

For helping behavior to have evolved, there must have been genetic variation in helpfulness. This week’s paper shows that this is still true for western bluebirds in Oregon.

Continue reading "Evolution of babysitting in bluebirds" »

The views and opinions expressed in this page are strictly those of the page author. The contents of this page have not been reviewed or approved by the University of Minnesota.