4.1 Article

The evolution of plasmid stability: Are infectious transmission and compensatory evolution competing evolutionary trajectories?

期刊

PLASMID
卷 91, 期 -, 页码 90-95

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.plasmid.2017.04.003

关键词

-

资金

  1. European Research Council under the European Union's Seventh Framework Programme [(FP7/2007W2013)/ERC, StGW2012W31 1490-COEVOCON]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Conjugative plasmids are widespread and play an important role in bacterial evolution by accelerating adaptation through horizontal gene transfer. However, explaining the long-term stability of plasmids remains challenging because segregational loss and the costs of plasmid carriage should drive the loss of plasmids though purifying selection. Theoretical and experimental studies suggest two key evolutionary routes to plasmid stability: First, the evolution of high conjugation rates would allow plasmids to survive through horizontal transmission as infectious agents, and second, compensatory evolution to ameliorate the cost of plasmid carriage can weaken purifying selection against plasmids. How these two evolutionary strategies for plasmid stability interact is unclear. Here, we summarise the literature on the evolution of plasmid stability and then use individual based modelling to investigate the evolutionary interplay between the evolution of plasmid conjugation rate and cost amelioration. We find that, individually, both strategies promote plasmid stability, and that they act together to increase the likelihood of plasmid survival. However, due to the inherent costs of increasing conjugation rate, particularly where conjugation is unlikely to be successful, our model predicts that amelioration is the more likely long-term solution to evolving stable bacteria-plasmid associations. Our model therefore suggests that bacteria-plasmid relationships should evolve towards lower plasmid costs that may forestall the evolution of highly conjugative, 'infectious' plasmids.

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

4.1
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