4.6 Article

Negative frequency-dependent interactions can underlie phenotypic heterogeneity in a clonal microbial population

期刊

MOLECULAR SYSTEMS BIOLOGY
卷 12, 期 8, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.15252/msb.20167033

关键词

ecology; evolution; frequency dependence; phenotypic heterogeneity; stochastic gene expression

资金

  1. Allen Distinguished Investigator Program
  2. NIH New Innovator Award
  3. Pew Scholar in the Biomedical Sciences
  4. Sloan Research Fellow

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Genetically identical cells in microbial populations often exhibit a remarkable degree of phenotypic heterogeneity even in homogenous environments. Such heterogeneity is commonly thought to represent a bet-hedging strategy against environmental uncertainty. However, evolutionary game theory predicts that phenotypic heterogeneity may also be a response to negative frequency-dependent interactions that favor rare phenotypes over common ones. Here we provide experimental evidence for this alternative explanation in the context of the well-studied yeast GAL network. In an environment containing the two sugars glucose and galactose, the yeast GAL network displays stochastic bimodal activation. We show that in this mixed sugar environment, GAL-ON and GAL-OFF phenotypes can each invade the opposite phenotype when rare and that there exists a resulting stable mix of phenotypes. Consistent with theoretical predictions, the resulting stable mix of phenotypes is not necessarily optimal for population growth. We find that the wild-type mixed strategist GAL network can invade populations of both pure strategists while remaining uninvasible by either. Lastly, using laboratory evolution we show that this mixed resource environment can directly drive the de novo evolution of clonal phenotypic heterogeneity from a pure strategist population. Taken together, our results provide experimental evidence that negative frequency-dependent interactions can underlie the phenotypic heterogeneity found in clonal microbial populations.

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

4.6
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