'Policing' stops cheaters from dominating groups of cooperative bacteria

May 26, 2011
When environmental conditions are hospitable, Myxococcus xanthus takes a rod-shaped form (yellow), swarming, dividing, and competing with other cells for nutrients. When stressed, the bacterium becomes more social, collaborating with other cells to produce spherical spores (green) that can withstand stress. Credit: Image courtesy of Juergen Berger and Supriya Kadam

For cooperation to persist in the often violently competitive realm of bacteria, cheaters must be kept in line.

Two Indiana University Bloomington biologists have learned that in one bacterium, at least, bacterial cooperators can evolve to "police" the cheaters and arrest their bids for dominance.

"Even simple organisms such as bacteria can evolve to suppress social cheaters," said Gregory Velicer, who with Ph.D. student Pauline Manhes has reported the policing behavior in the .

Their suggest that cooperative bacteria in nature may evolve to behave in ways that thwart the increase of selfish cheaters. In complex such as ourselves, cancer cells can be viewed as cheaters that proliferate at the expense of the larger organism. If are not successfully "policed" by our healthy cells (and/or ), the results can be catastrophic. Similarly, the long-term fate of cooperator can be threatened by neighboring cheater lineages in the same social group unless the cooperators are able to migrate away from cheaters or evolve to suppress them.

"Mechanisms that prevent, mitigate or eliminate social conflict among interacting individuals are required for or multicellularity to succeed," Velicer said. "Policing is one such mechanism. This study shows that bacteria have the potential to evolve behaviors that eliminate fitness advantages derived from cheating within ."

Myxococcus xanthus is a predatory that swarms through soil, killing and eating other by secreting toxic and digestive compounds. When food runs out, cells aggregate and exchange chemical signals to form cooperative, multi-cellular fruiting bodies. Some of the cells create the fruiting body's structure. Other cells are destined to become hardy that can survive starvation and other difficult conditions.

In mixed fruiting bodies containing both "cheater" and "cooperator" strains, the cheater strain utilized by Manhes and Velicer does not contribute a social signal required for making spores, whereas the cooperative strain does. Defection from making a social contribution allows cheater cells to "steal" the social signal from cooperators and convert a larger proportion of their cells into spores than do cooperators. Thus, the cheater strain loses to the cooperator strain when they develop in separate groups, but the cheater wins in mixed groups where they directly interact with cooperators.

The scientists mixed cooperative and cheating strains of M. xanthus and allowed cooperator lineages -- but not the cheater -- to evolve under starvation conditions in which cooperative construction of fruiting bodies is important for survival. They then watched to see how replicate lineages descended from the cooperator strain would evolve while repeatedly encountering the same non-evolving cheater over many consecutive cycles of fruiting body development.

Both strains were exposed to an antibiotic during a growth phase after each cycle of development. Cheater cells are sensitive to the antibiotic and were killed off, whereas cooperator cells were resistant to the antibiotic and their populations could continue growing and evolving. The same non-evolving cheater strain was reintroduced to the evolving cooperator lineages at the beginning of each cycle of fruiting body development and removed at the end of each cycle.
The evolution experiment was allowed to run for 20 cycles of development.

"We tested whether cooperators adapted to the presence of a cheater mainly by changing their social interactions with that cheater or by improving their spore production in a way that is independent of their social environment," Manhes said. "We found that the lineages descended from the cooperative ancestor evolved novel interactions with the cheater that improved their fitness."

The policing behavior was described as "selfish" because suppression of the cheaters directly benefited the evolved populations themselves rather than being self-sacrificial for the benefit of others. That being said, the selfish police actually do strongly benefit cooperator cells in at least one social context. In mixed groups that include three players -- the evolved cells, the cheater and the ancestral cooperator -- the ancestor produced far more spores than it did when it was mixed with only the cheater.

The evolving populations might have gained the ability to suppress cheaters by a variety of mechanisms, Velicer said.

For example, the descendants of the ancestral cooperator might have evolved a general anti-competitor trait that generically harms a variety of potential competitors to a similar degree, but this did not occur. Rather, the cooperator lineages evolved behaviors that are particularly harmful to the non-evolving cheater. "We would like to investigate the molecular basis of cheater suppression," Velicer said, "in particular whether it is due to the positive production of a compound that is uniquely detrimental to the cheater or some other mechanism."

The scientists competed the strains that evolved to deal with the cheater against their cooperative ancestor, both with the cheater present in the same group and without the cheater. They found that most evolved populations strongly outcompeted their ancestor only when the cheater was present. This result showed that much of the adaptation that took place during the evolution experiment was a specific evolutionary response to the presence of cheater cells.

In an intriguing reversal of fate, some of the replicate populations that evolved from the cooperative ancestor actually became cheaters themselves, but of a new kind. These new cheaters differed from the non-evolving cheater (the one that was mixed with the evolving populations during every round of development) and in some cases could socially exploit both the cooperative ancestor and the non-evolving cheater itself.

This study may cast a shadow on recent proposals that cheaters might be used to thwart infections of bacteria that cooperate with each other to cause disease in humans. The basic idea of such proposals is to introduce cheaters that will disrupt the social cohesion of infecting bacterial populations. However, just as bacteria readily evolve resistance to antibiotics, cooperative bacteria that infect humans or animals may evolve to beat the cheats.

Explore further: Evolution of marine crocodilians constrained by ocean temperatures

Related Stories

An sRNA controls a bacterium's social life

May 20, 2010

For the first time, biologists have directly shown how spontaneous mutation of a small RNA (sRNA) regulatory molecule can provide an evolutionary advantage. Reporting in this week's Science, Indiana University Bloomington scient ...

Amoebae control cheating by keeping it in the family

Jul 05, 2007

No one likes a cheater, even a single-celled one. New research from Rice University shows how cooperative single-celled amoebae rely on family ties to keep cheaters from undermining the health of their colonies. The research ...

In amoeba world, cheating doesn't pay

Oct 01, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- Cheaters may prosper in the short term, but over time they seem doomed to fail, at least in the microscopic world of amoebas where natural selection favors the noble.

For this microbe, cousins not particularly welcome

Jan 06, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- A bacterial species that depends on cooperation to survive is discriminating when it comes to the company it keeps. Scientists from Indiana University Bloomington and Netherlands' Centre for ...

Hydrocarbon afterglow reveals reproductive cheaters

Jan 09, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- An ‘honest indicator’ has been discovered by a scientific team at Arizona State University that reveals reproductive cheating. But before you run out to buy an infidelity identification ...

Recommended for you

Are flexible parents adaptable parents?

Aug 18, 2014

(Phys.org) —The flexibility of parental behaviours to respond to changes in behaviour of their offspring may actually constrain the ability of parents to adapt to changes in their wider environment.

UMSL scholar examines evolution of learning

Aug 14, 2014

Why do monkeys learn to be afraid of snakes and not flowers? Is this knowledge the result of evolution by natural selection? Did the monkeys that couldn't learn that association quickly die and not reproduce?

User comments : 0