Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T21:20:58.587Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

A thermodynamic limit constrains complexity and primitive social function

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 June 2018

Philip J Gerrish*
Affiliation:
School of Biology, Georgia Tech, 310 Ferst Dr NW, Atlanta, GA 30332, USA Theoretical Biology & Biophysics, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM 87545, USA Instituto de Ciencias Biomédicas, Universidad Autónoma de Ciuadad Juarez, 32310 Chihuahua, México
Claudia P Ferreira
Affiliation:
Departamento de Bioestatística, Instituto de Biociências, Universidade Estadual Paulista, 18618-000 Botucatu, São Paulo, Brazil
*
Author for correspondence: Philip J. Gerrish, E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract

The evolutionary trend toward increasing complexity and social function is ultimately the result of natural selection's paradoxical tendency to foster cooperation through competition. Cooperating populations ranging from complex societies to somatic tissue are constantly under attack, however, by non-cooperating mutants or transformants, called ‘cheaters’. Structure in these populations promotes the formation of cooperating clusters whose competitive superiority can alone be sufficient to thwart outgrowths of cheaters and thereby maintain cooperation. But we find that when cheaters appear too frequently – exceeding a threshold mutation or transformation rate – their scattered outgrowths infiltrate and break up cooperating clusters, resulting in a cascading loss of social cohesiveness, a switch to net positive selection for cheaters and ultimately in the loss of cooperation. Our findings imply that a critically low mutation rate had to be achieved (perhaps through the advent of proofreading and repair mechanisms) before complex cooperative functions, such as those required for multicellularity and social behaviour, could have evolved and persisted. When mutation rate in our model is also allowed to evolve, the threshold is crossed spontaneously after thousands of generations, at which point cheaters rapidly invade. Probing extrapolations of these findings suggest: (1) in somatic tissue, it is neither social retro-evolution alone nor mutation rate evolution alone but the interplay between these two that ultimately leads to oncogenic transitions; the rate of this coevolution might thereby provide an indicator of lifespan of species, terrestrial or not; (2) the likelihood that extraterrestrial life can be expected to be multicellular and social should be affected by ultraviolet and other mutagenic factors.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alexander, RD (1987) The Biology of Moral Systems. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Allen, BA, Traulsen, A, Tarnita, CE and Nowak, MA (2012) How mutation affects evolutionary games on graphs. Journal of Theoretical Biology 299, 97105.Google Scholar
Axelrod, R and Hamilton, WD (1981) The evolution of cooperation. Science 211, 13901396.Google Scholar
Baalen, V (2000) Pair approximations for different spatial geometries. In Dieckmann, U, Law, R and Metz, JAJ (eds), The Geometry of Ecological Interactions: Simplifying Spatial Complexity. Cambridge University Press, pp. 359387.Google Scholar
Ellner, SP (2001) Pair approximation for lattice models with multiple interaction scales. Journal of Theoretical Biology 210(4), 435447.Google Scholar
Fiegna, F and Velicer, GJ (2003) Competitive fates of bacterial social parasites: persistence and self-induced extinction of Myxococcus xanthus cheaters. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 270, 15271534.Google Scholar
Frank, SA (1994) Kin selection and virulence in the evolution of protocells and parasites. Proceedings. Biological Sciences/The Royal Society 258, 153161.Google Scholar
Garcia, J and Traulsen, A (2012) The structure of mutations and the evolution of cooperation. PloS ONE 7(4), e35287.Google Scholar
Gerrish, PJ (2010) Mutation rate and the maintenance of cooperation: a parsimonious model of somatic evolution and oncogenic transitions. Proceedings of Computational and Mathematical Methods in Science and Engineering 2010, 11291132.Google Scholar
Hamilton, WD (1964) The genetical evolution of social behaviour. Journal of Theoretical Biology 7, 116.Google Scholar
Hanahan, D and Weinberg, RA (2000) The hallmarks of cancer. Cell 100(1), 5770.Google Scholar
Hardin, G (1968) The tragedy of the commons. Science 162, 12431248.Google Scholar
Harrison, F and Buckling, A (2005) Hypermutability impedes cooperation in pathogenic bacteria. Current Biology 15, 19681971.Google Scholar
Ichinose, G, Satotani, Y and Sayama, H (2018) How mutation alters the evolutionary dynamics of cooperation on networks. New Journal of Physics. http://iopscience.iop.org/10.1088/1367-2630/aac2a7Google Scholar
Lane, N and Martin, W (2010) The energetics of genome complexity. Nature 467, 929.Google Scholar
Levin, SR, Scott, TW, Cooper, HS and West, SA (2017) Darwin's aliens. International Journal of Astrobiology 69, 19.Google Scholar
Maynard Smith, J and Szathmáry, Er (1995) The Major Transitions in Evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Merlo, LM, Pepper, JW, Reid, BJ and Maley, CC (2006) Cancer as an evolutionary and ecological process. Nature Reviews Cancer 6(12), 924935.Google Scholar
Michod, RE and Roze, D (2001) Cooperation and conflict in the evolution of multicellularity. Nature Heredity 86, 17.Google Scholar
Modrich, P (1994) Mismatch repair, genetic stability and cancer. Science 266(5193), 19591960.Google Scholar
Nelson, GW and Perelson, AS (1995) Modeling defective interfering virus therapy for AIDS: conditions for DIV survival. Mathematical Biosciences 125(2), 127153.Google Scholar
Nowak, MA (2012) Why we help: the evolution of cooperation. Scientific American 307(1), 3439.Google Scholar
Nowak, MA and May, RM (1992) Evolutionary games and spatial chaos. Nature 359, 826829.Google Scholar
Nowak, MA and Sigmund, K (1998) Evolution of indirect reciprocity by image scoring. Nature 393, 573577.Google Scholar
Nowak, MA and Sigmund, K (2004) Evolutionary dynamics of biological games. Science 303(5659), 793799.Google Scholar
Nowak, MA, Bonhoeffer, S and May, RM (1994) Spatial games and the maintenance of cooperation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 91, 48774881.Google Scholar
Ohtsuki, H, Hauert, C, Lieberman, E and Nowak, MA (2006) A simple rule for the evolution of cooperation on graphs and social networks. Nature 441(7092), 502505.Google Scholar
Pacheco, JM, Traulsen, A and Nowak, MA (2006) Coevolution of strategy and structure in complex networks with dynamical linking. Physical Review Letters 97(25), 258103.Google Scholar
Price, GR (1972) Extension of covariance selection mathematics. Annals of Human Genetics 35, 485490.Google Scholar
Queller, DC (1997) Cooperators since life began. The Quarterly Review of Biology 72(2), 184188.Google Scholar
Riolo, RL, Cohen, MD and Axelrod, R (2001) Evolution of cooperation without reciprocity. Nature 414, 441443.Google Scholar
Santorelli, LA, Thompson, CRL, Villegas, E, Svetz, J, Dinh, C, Parikh, A, Sucgang, R, Kuspa, A, Strassmann, JE, Queller, DC and Shaulsky, G (2008) Facultative cheater mutants reveal the genetic complexity of cooperation in social amoebae. Nature 451(7182), 11071110.Google Scholar
Sniegowski, PD, Gerrish, PJ and Lenski, RE (1997) Evolution of high mutation rates in experimental populations of E. coli. Nature 387(6634), 703705.Google Scholar
Stewart, AJ and Plotkin, JB (2014) Collapse of cooperation in evolving games. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 111, 1755817563.Google Scholar
Stewart, AJ and Plotkin, JB (2015) The evolvability of cooperation under local and non-local mutations. Games 6, 213250.Google Scholar
Strassmann, JE, Zhu, Y and Queller, DC (2000) Altruism and social cheating in the social amoeba Dictyostelium discoideum. Nature 408, 965967.Google Scholar
Szathmáry, E (2015) Toward major evolutionary transitions theory 2.0. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112, 1010410111.Google Scholar
Taylor, PD, Day, T and Wild, G (2007) Evolution of cooperation in a finite homogeneous graph. Nature 447(7143), 469472.Google Scholar
Turner, PE and Chao, L (1999) Prisoner's dilemma in an RNA virus. Nature 398, 441443.Google Scholar
Velicer, GJ (2003) Social strife in the microbial world. TRENDS in Microbiology 11, 330337.Google Scholar
Velicer, G and Vos, M (2009) The evolution of cooperation in the Myxobacteria. Annual Review of Microbiology 63, 599623.Google Scholar
Velicer, GJ, Kroos, L and Lenski, RE (1998) Loss of social behaviors by Myxococcus xanthus during evolution in an unstructured habitat. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 95, 1237612380.Google Scholar
Velicer, GJ, Kroos, L and Lenski, RE (2000) Developmental cheating in the social bacterium Myxococcus xanthus. Nature 404, 598601.Google Scholar
Ward, PD and Brownlee, D (2000) Rare Earth: Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe. New York: Copernicus Books.Google Scholar
West, SA, Fisher, RM, Gardner, A and Kiers, ET (2015) Major evolutionary transitions in individuality. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 112(33), 1011210119.Google Scholar
West, SA, Griffin, AS, Gardner, A and Diggle, SP (2006) Social evolution theory for microorganisms. Nature Review Microbiology 4(8), 597607.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Gerrish and Ferreira supplementary material 1

Gerrish and Ferreira supplementary material

Download Gerrish and Ferreira supplementary material 1(File)
File 1.1 MB
Supplementary material: PDF

Gerrish and Ferreira supplementary material 2

Gerrish and Ferreira supplementary material

Download Gerrish and Ferreira supplementary material 2(PDF)
PDF 579.3 KB