Kin-Based Recognition and Social Aggregation in a Ciliate

Chaine, Alexis S.; Schtickzelle, Nicolas; Polard, Thierry; Huet, Michèle; Clobert, Jean

doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.2009.00902.x

Cited by 43 publications

(111 citation statements)

References 70 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

111

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Since ciliates and dinoflagellates are closely related (within the clade Alveolata), we may assume that similar cooperative feeding strategies have evolved among ciliates. Cooperation affecting growth, aggregation, recruitment and dispersal rates has been demonstrated for the model ciliate Tetrahymena thermophila in experimental microcosms (Chaine et al 2010;Jacob et al 2015;Pennekamp et al 2014;Schtickzelle et al 2009; see Chapter 'Social Information in Cooperation and Dispersal by Tetrahymena' by Jacob et al).…”

Section: Communication In Natural Ciliate Populationsmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…The various modes of ciliate communication with their internal (intracellular) and external environment have been discussed in detail in the other chapters of this book. In most cases, ciliate communication has been studied with a few model organisms such as Tetrahymena, Paramecium, Euplotes and Blepharisma in the laboratory (e.g., Chaine et al 2010;Jacob et al 2015;Kuhlmann et al 1999;Nanney 1980). Much less is known about communication of ciliates in their natural realm.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Ciliates in Planktonic Food Webs: Communication and Adaptive Response

Weisse

Sonntag

2016

Biocommunication of Ciliates

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ciliates are key elements of aquatic food webs, acting as predators of bacteria, algae, other protists and even some metazoans. Planktonic ciliates are important food for zooplankton, and mixotrophic and functionally autotrophic species may significantly contribute to primary production in lakes and in the ocean. Ciliates are linked to other plankton organisms and to abiotic parameters by various direct (e.g., predation and parasitism) and indirect (e.g., nutrient release via excretion, competition for food) interactions. Communication is involved in many of those interactions, but direct evidence from the field is scarce. This is mainly because aquatic ciliates live in a dilute environment and most species occur in low cell numbers. Key processes of chemical and hydromechanical communication among ciliates, between ciliates and their predators and prey, and between ciliates and their endosymbionts have been studied in some detail in vitro. Results from microcosm experiments suggest that ciliates also cooperate with each other and use information mediated by different other organisms. Extrapolating those results obtained in small-scale laboratory experiments to the ocean level is a major challenge for future research. To this end, more communication and cooperation is needed between cell biologists, ecologists, and evolutionary biologists. In contrast to communication, adaptations of natural ciliate populations to their abiotic and biotic environment have been well documented in selected freshwater and marine species. The effect of individual environmental variables and, less often, the interactive effect of several variables on growth and survival rates of ciliates have been studied with a number of ciliate species in the laboratory and inferred from their seasonal occurrence in the field. However, more information is needed on the autecology of free-living ciliate species and their role in the planktonic community. In particular, the significance of indirect ('lateral') effects in the food web received little attention and awaits future research.

show abstract

Section: Communication In Natural Ciliate Populationsmentioning

confidence: 94%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Ciliates in Planktonic Food Webs: Communication and Adaptive Response

Weisse

Sonntag

2016

Biocommunication of Ciliates

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Kin recognition has been shown in many vertebrates (38), and it is important for stabilizing cooperation and promoting inclusive fitness benefits in some species (39). There is suggestive evidence for some sort of kin detection system in humans as well, such that, for each individual encountered, an unspecified system may compute and update a continuous measure of kinship that corresponds to the genetic relatedness of the self to the other individual (18).…”

Section: Figmentioning

confidence: 99%

Friendship and natural selection

Christakis

Fowler

2014

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

120

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

More than any other species, humans form social ties to individuals who are neither kin nor mates, and these ties tend to be with similar people. Here, we show that this similarity extends to genotypes. Across the whole genome, friends’ genotypes at the single nucleotide polymorphism level tend to be positively correlated (homophilic). In fact, the increase in similarity relative to strangers is at the level of fourth cousins. However, certain genotypes are also negatively correlated (heterophilic) in friends. And the degree of correlation in genotypes can be used to create a “friendship score” that predicts the existence of friendship ties in a hold-out sample. A focused gene-set analysis indicates that some of the overall correlation in genotypes can be explained by specific systems; for example, an olfactory gene set is homophilic and an immune system gene set is heterophilic, suggesting that these systems may play a role in the formation or maintenance of friendship ties. Friends may be a kind of “functional kin.” Finally, homophilic genotypes exhibit significantly higher measures of positive selection, suggesting that, on average, they may yield a synergistic fitness advantage that has been helping to drive recent human evolution.

show abstract

“…Associations between the genotypes of connected individuals are known to result from genetic correlations between mates or as a result of groupings established on the basis of kinship (e.g., matrilineal tribal groupings). Indeed, kin recognition has been shown in a variety of organisms, including plants (6), ants (7), and vertebrates (8), and is important for stabilizing cooperation and promoting inclusive fitness benefits in some species (9).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Correlated genotypes in friendship networks

Fowler¹,

Settle²,

Christakis³

2011

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

179

140

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is well known that humans tend to associate with other humans who have similar characteristics, but it is unclear whether this tendency has consequences for the distribution of genotypes in a population. Although geneticists have shown that populations tend to stratify genetically, this process results from geographic sorting or assortative mating, and it is unknown whether genotypes may be correlated as a consequence of nonreproductive associations or other processes. Here, we study six available genotypes from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health to test for genetic similarity between friends. Maps of the friendship networks show clustering of genotypes and, after we apply strict controls for population stratification, the results show that one genotype is positively correlated (homophily) and one genotype is negatively correlated (heterophily). A replication study in an independent sample from the Framingham Heart Study verifies that DRD2 exhibits significant homophily and that CYP2A6 exhibits significant heterophily. These unique results show that homophily and heterophily obtain on a genetic (indeed, an allelic) level, which has implications for the study of population genetics and social behavior. In particular, the results suggest that association tests should include friends' genes and that theories of evolution should take into account the fact that humans might, in some sense, be metagenomic with respect to the humans around them.social networks | gene-environment interaction | indirect genetic effects

show abstract

Kin-Based Recognition and Social Aggregation in a Ciliate

Abstract: Aggregative groups entail costs that must be overcome for the evolution of complex social interactions. Understanding the mechanisms that allow aggregations to form and restrict costs of cheating can provide a resolution to the instability of social

Cited by 43 publications

References 70 publications

Ciliates in Planktonic Food Webs: Communication and Adaptive Response

Ciliates in Planktonic Food Webs: Communication and Adaptive Response

Friendship and natural selection

Correlated genotypes in friendship networks

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About