It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Syntrophic cooperation among prokaryotes is ubiquitous and diverse. It relies on unilateral or mutual aid that may be both catalytic and metabolic in nature. Hypotheses of eukaryotic origins claim that mitochondrial endosymbiosis emerged from mutually beneficial syntrophy of archaeal and bacterial partners. However, there are no other examples of prokaryotic syntrophy leading to endosymbiosis. One potential reason is that when externalized products become public goods, they incite social conflict due to selfish mutants that may undermine any mutualistic interactions. To rigorously evaluate these arguments, here we construct a general mathematical framework of the ecology and evolution of different types of syntrophic partnerships. We do so both in a general microbial and in a eukaryogenetic context. Studying the case where partners cross-feed on each other’s self-inhibiting waste, we show that cooperative partnerships will eventually dominate over selfish mutants. By contrast, systems where producers actively secrete enzymes that cross-facilitate their partners’ resource consumption are not robust against cheaters over evolutionary time. We conclude that cross-facilitation is unlikely to provide an adequate syntrophic origin for endosymbiosis, but that cross-feeding mutualisms may indeed have played that role.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
1 MTA Centre for Ecological Research, Institute of Evolution, Budapest, Hungary (GRID:grid.481817.3); International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), ASA Program, Laxenburg, Austria (GRID:grid.75276.31) (ISNI:0000 0001 1955 9478); Centre for Social Sciences, Budapest, Hungary (GRID:grid.472630.4) (ISNI:0000 0004 0605 4691)
2 MTA Centre for Ecological Research, Institute of Evolution, Budapest, Hungary (GRID:grid.481817.3); Linköping University, Division of Ecological and Environmental Modeling, Linköping, Sweden (GRID:grid.5640.7) (ISNI:0000 0001 2162 9922)
3 MTA Centre for Ecological Research, Institute of Evolution, Budapest, Hungary (GRID:grid.481817.3)
4 MTA Centre for Ecological Research, Institute of Evolution, Budapest, Hungary (GRID:grid.481817.3); Eötvös Loránd University, Department of Plant Systematics, Ecology and Theoretical Biology, Budapest, Hungary (GRID:grid.5591.8) (ISNI:0000 0001 2294 6276); Centre for the Conceptual Foundation of Science, Parmenides Foundation, Pullach Im Isartal, Germany (GRID:grid.437252.5)