4.7 Article

The coevolution of toxin and antitoxin genes drives the dynamics of bacterial addiction complexes and intragenomic conflict

期刊

出版社

ROYAL SOC
DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2012.0942

关键词

genomic conflict; plasmid evolution; horizontal gene transfer; post-segregational killing; genetic addiction; toxin-antitoxin systems

资金

  1. Swiss National Science Foundation [PZ00P3-121800, 31003A-125457]
  2. Wellcome Trust [082273]
  3. EPSRC [EP/H032436/1]
  4. Marsden Fund of New Zealand [09-UOC-013]
  5. Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF) [PZ00P3_121800] Funding Source: Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF)
  6. EPSRC [EP/H032436/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  7. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [EP/H032436/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Bacterial genomes commonly contain 'addiction' gene complexes that code for both a toxin and a corresponding antitoxin. As long as both genes are expressed, cells carrying the complex can remain healthy. However, loss of the complex (including segregational loss in daughter cells) can entail death of the cell. We develop a theoretical model to explore a number of evolutionary puzzles posed by toxin-antitoxin (TA) population biology. We first extend earlier results demonstrating that TA complexes can spread on plasmids, as an adaptation to plasmid competition in spatially structured environments, and highlight the role of kin selection. We then considered the emergence of TA complexes on plasmids from previously unlinked toxin and antitoxin genes. We find that one of these traits must offer at least initially a direct advantage in some but not all environments encountered by the evolving plasmid population. Finally, our study predicts non-transitive 'rock-paper-scissors' dynamics to be a feature of intragenomic conflict mediated by TA complexes. Intragenomic conflict could be sufficient to select deleterious genes on chromosomes and helps to explain the previously perplexing observation that many TA genes are found on bacterial chromosomes.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据