Relatedness and the evolution of mechanisms to divide labor in microorganisms

Liu, Ming; West, Stuart A.; Cooper, Guy Alexander

doi:10.1002/ece3.8067

Cited by 14 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 110 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We hypothesised that the benefits of between-individual differences (scenario 2) or reciprocal specialisation (scenario 3) rely on the implicit assumption that cells are coordinating which individuals specialise to become reproductive and helpers. This matters because mechanisms for coordinating division of labour, such as between cell signalling, might not be expected to exist before division of labour has evolved ( Cooper et al, 2022 ; Liu et al, 2021 ). Consequently, if coordination was required, then this could limit the extent to which topological constrains favour the initial evolution of division of labour.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Consequently, for division of labour to evolve with non-accelerating returns from individual specialisation, there must exist some mechanism to coordinate which cells specialise to perform which tasks. It is possible that the mechanism need not produce a perfect allocation of labour across the group as analysed in our models ( Liu et al, 2021 ). However, because division of labour cannot be favoured to evolve if role allocation is fully random, at least some degree of even imperfect between-cell coordination will be required.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, the biological plausibility of any pre-existing mechanism would need to be explicitly justified and modelled on a case-by-case basis ( Duarte et al, 2011 ). This would include modelling the metabolic cost, benefits and effectiveness of the mechanism ( Cooper et al, 2022 ; Duarte et al, 2012 ; Liu et al, 2021 ). Empirically, while between-cell coordination has evolved in several labour-dividing microbial species, further studies—such as ancestral-state reconstructions—are needed to show whether coordination evolved prior to, concurrently with, or subsequent to division of labour in individual species.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The evolution of division of labour in structured and unstructured groups

Cooper

Frost

Liu

et al. 2021

eLife

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent theory has overturned the assumption that accelerating returns from individual specialisation are required to favour the evolution of division of labour. Yanni et al. (2020) showed that topologically constrained groups, where cells cooperate with only direct neighbours such as for filaments or branching growths, can evolve a reproductive division of labour even with diminishing returns from individual specialisation. We develop a conceptual framework and specific models to investigate the factors that can favour the initial evolution of reproductive division of labour. We find that selection for division of labour in topologically constrained groups: (1) is not a single mechanism to favour division of labour - depending upon details of the group structure, division of labour can be favoured for different reasons; (2) always involves an efficiency benefit at the level of group fitness; and (3) requires a mechanism of coordination to determine which individuals perform which tasks. Given that such coordination must evolve prior to or concurrently with division of labour, this could limit the extent to which topological constraints favoured the initial evolution of division of labour. We conclude by suggesting experimental designs that could determine why division of labour is favoured in the natural world.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The evolution of division of labour in structured and unstructured groups

Cooper

Frost

Liu

et al. 2021

eLife

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Similar complication in coevolving traits have also been observed in other studies involving individual-based simulations (Tibbetts et al . 2020; Liu et al . 2021).…”

Section: Formal Analysis Of the Scenario With A Single Mechanism To M...mentioning

confidence: 99%

The evolution of manipulative cheating

Liu

West

Wild³

2022

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A social cheat is typically assumed to be an individual that does not perform a cooperative behaviour, or performs less of it, but can still exploit the cooperative behaviour of others. However, empirical data suggests that cheating can be more subtle, involving evolutionary arms races over the ability to both exploit and resist exploitation. These complications have not been captured by evolutionary theory, which lags behind empirical studies in this area. We bridge this gap with a mixture of game-theoretical models and individual-based simulations, examining what conditions favour more elaborate patterns of cheating. We found that as well as adjusting their own behaviour, individuals can be selected to manipulate the behaviour of others, which we term ‘manipulative cheating’. Further, we found that manipulative cheating can lead to dynamic oscillations (arms races), between selfishness, manipulation, and suppression of manipulation. Our results can help explain both variation in the level of cheating, and genetic variation in the extent to which individuals can be exploited by cheats.

show abstract

“…Cooper et al note that this might limit the scope of spatial topology favouring division of labour in instances where returns for individuals are reduced. After all, coordination is more likely to evolve after division of labour has occurred and cells have already developed specific roles ( Liu et al, 2021 ).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%