High relatedness maintains multicellular cooperation in a social amoeba by controlling cheater mutants

The control of cheating is important for understanding major transitions in evolution, from the simplest genes to the most complex societies. Cooperative systems can be ruined if cheaters that lower group productivity are able to spread. Kin-selection theory predicts that high genetic relatedness can limit cheating, because separation of cheaters and cooperators limits opportunities to cheat and promotes selection against low-fitness groups of cheaters. Here, we confirm this prediction for the social amoeba Dictyostelium discoideum; relatedness in natural wild groups is so high that socially destructive cheaters should not spread. We illustrate in the laboratory how high relatedness can control a mutant that would destroy cooperation at low relatedness. Finally, we demonstrate that, as predicted, mutant cheaters do not normally harm cooperation in a natural population. Our findings show how altruism is preserved from the disruptive effects of such mutant cheaters and how exceptionally high relatedness among cells is important in promoting the cooperation that underlies multicellular development.

[1]  L W Buss,et al.  Somatic cell parasitism and the evolution of somatic tissue compatibility. , 1982, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[2]  John Tyler Bonner,et al.  The Cellular Slime Molds. , 1967 .

[3]  R. Firtel,et al.  An F-Box/WD40 repeat-containing protein important for Dictyostelium cell-type proportioning, slug behaviour, and culmination. , 2000, Developmental biology.

[4]  Eric M. Just,et al.  dictyBase, the model organism database for Dictyostelium discoideum , 2005, Nucleic Acids Res..

[5]  M. Sussman,et al.  Cultivation and synchronous morphogenesis of Dictyostelium under controlled experimental conditions. , 1987, Methods in cell biology.

[6]  R. Firtel,et al.  Regulated protein degradation controls PKA function and cell-type differentiation in Dictyostelium. , 2001, Genes & development.

[7]  M. Travisano,et al.  Strategies of microbial cheater control. , 2004, Trends in microbiology.

[8]  A. Griffin,et al.  Cooperation and competition in pathogenic bacteria , 2004, Nature.

[9]  R. Kessin Dictyostelium: Evolution, Cell Biology, and the Development of Multicellularity , 2001 .

[10]  K. Foster,et al.  Pleiotropy as a mechanism to stabilize cooperation , 2004, Nature.

[11]  M. Watve,et al.  Altruist Cheater Dynamics in Dictyostelium: Aggregated Distribution Gives Stable Oscillations , 1997, The American Naturalist.

[12]  U Dieckmann,et al.  Evolutionary dynamics of altruism and cheating among social amoebas , 2005, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[13]  L. Buss,et al.  The evolution of individuality , 1987 .

[14]  D. Queller,et al.  Relatedness and the fraternal major transitions. , 2000, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences.

[15]  J. Strassmann,et al.  Co‐occurrence in nature of different clones of the social amoeba, Dictyostelium discoideum , 2003, Molecular ecology.

[16]  D. Roze,et al.  Altruism, Cheating, and Anticheater Adaptations in Cellular Slime Molds , 2002, The American Naturalist.

[17]  R. Kolter,et al.  Evolutionary cheating in Escherichia coli stationary phase cultures. , 2001, Genetics.

[18]  R. Kessin,et al.  Mutation of the Dictyostelium fbxA gene affects cell-fate decisions and spatial patterning. , 2003, Protist.

[19]  M. Feldman,et al.  Local dispersal promotes biodiversity in a real-life game of rock–paper–scissors , 2002, Nature.

[20]  Hideko Urushihara,et al.  A transcriptional profile of multicellular development in Dictyostelium discoideum. , 2002, Development.

[21]  D. Greig,et al.  The Prisoner's Dilemma and polymorphism in yeast SUC genes , 2004, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[22]  R. Crozier,et al.  Genetic Intrigues. (Book Reviews: Evolution of Social Insect Colonies. Sex Allocation and Kin Selection.) , 1997 .

[23]  J. Strassmann,et al.  Altruism and social cheating in the social amoeba Dictyostelium discoideum , 2000, Nature.

[24]  G. J. Velicer,et al.  Competitive fates of bacterial social parasites: persistence and self–induced extinction of Myxococcus xanthus cheaters , 2003, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[25]  John Tyler Bonner,et al.  The Cellular Slime Molds , 1967 .

[26]  R. Kessin,et al.  Dictyostelium amoebae lacking an F-box protein form spores rather than stalk in chimeras with wild type. , 2000, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[27]  G. J. Velicer,et al.  Evolution of an obligate social cheater to a superior cooperator , 2006, Nature.

[28]  R. Lenski,et al.  Developmental cheating in the social bacterium Myxococcus xanthus , 2000, Nature.

[29]  J. Strassmann,et al.  A linear dominance hierarchy among clones in chimeras of the social amoeba Dictyostelium discoideum , 2003, Journal of evolutionary biology.

[30]  M. Filosa Heterocytosis in Cellular Slime Molds , 1962, The American Naturalist.

[31]  David M. Prescott,et al.  Methods in cell physiology , 1964 .

[32]  J. Bonner,et al.  Social insects and social amoebae , 1994, Journal of Biosciences.

[33]  Eörs Szathmáry,et al.  The Major Transitions in Evolution , 1997 .

[34]  G. Shaulsky,et al.  Social evolution: Kin preference in a social microbe , 2006, Nature.