Cooperation is needed for evolution to construct new levels of organization. Genomes, cells, multicellular organisms, social insects, and human society are all based on cooperation. Cooperation means that selfish replicators forgo some of their reproductive potential to help one another. But natural selection implies competition and therefore opposes cooperation unless a specific mechanism is at work. Here I discuss five mechanisms for the evolution of cooperation: kin selection, direct reciprocity, indirect reciprocity, network reciprocity, and group selection. For each mechanism, a simple rule is derived that specifies whether natural selection can lead to cooperation.

/pdf/five-rules-for-the-evolution-of-cooperation-2bpocasc6i.pdf

Five Rules for the Evolution of Cooperation

Bacterial biofilms are formed by communities that are embedded in a self-produced matrix of extracellular polymeric substances (EPS). Importantly, bacteria in biofilms exhibit a set of 'emergent properties' that differ substantially from free-living bacterial cells. In this Review, we consider the fundamental role of the biofilm matrix in establishing the emergent properties of biofilms, describing how the characteristic features of biofilms - such as social cooperation, resource capture and enhanced survival of exposure to antimicrobials - all rely on the structural and functional properties of the matrix. Finally, we highlight the value of an ecological perspective in the study of the emergent properties of biofilms, which enables an appreciation of the ecological success of biofilms as habitat formers and, more generally, as a bacterial lifestyle.

Biofilms: an emergent form of bacterial life.

Ecological and evolutionary forces shaping microbial diversity in the human intestine.

Metagenomics and 16S pyrosequencing have enabled the study of ecosystem structure and dynamics to great depth and accuracy. Co-occurrence and correlation patterns found in these data sets are increasingly used for the prediction of species interactions in environments ranging from the oceans to the human microbiome. In addition, parallelized co-culture assays and combinatorial labelling experiments allow high-throughput discovery of cooperative and competitive relationships between species. In this Review, we describe how these techniques are opening the way towards global ecosystem network prediction and the development of ecosystem-wide dynamic models.

Microbial interactions: from networks to models

Despite efforts to recruit and retain more women, a stark gender disparity persists within academic science. Abundant research has demonstrated gender bias in many demographic groups, but has yet to experimentally investigate whether science faculty exhibit a bias against female students that could contribute to the gender disparity in academic science. In a randomized double-blind study (n = 127), science faculty from research-intensive universities rated the application materials of a student—who was randomly assigned either a male or female name—for a laboratory manager position. Faculty participants rated the male applicant as significantly more competent and hireable than the (identical) female applicant. These participants also selected a higher starting salary and offered more career mentoring to the male applicant. The gender of the faculty participants did not affect responses, such that female and male faculty were equally likely to exhibit bias against the female student. Mediation analyses indicated that the female student was less likely to be hired because she was viewed as less competent. We also assessed faculty participants’ preexisting subtle bias against women using a standard instrument and found that preexisting subtle bias against women played a moderating role, such that subtle bias against women was associated with less support for the female student, but was unrelated to reactions to the male student. These results suggest that interventions addressing faculty gender bias might advance the goal of increasing the participation of women in science.

/pdf/science-faculty-s-subtle-gender-biases-favor-male-students-1999g000ej.pdf

Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students

From an evolutionary perspective, social behaviours are those which have fitness consequences for both the individual that performs the behaviour, and another individual. Over the last 43 years, a huge theoretical and empirical literature has developed on this topic. However, progress is often hindered by poor communication between scientists, with different people using the same term to mean different things, or different terms to mean the same thing. This can obscure what is biologically important, and what is not. The potential for such semantic confusion is greatest with interdisciplinary research. Our aim here is to address issues of semantic confusion that have arisen with research on the problem of cooperation. In particular, we: (i) discuss confusion over the terms kin selection, mutualism, mutual benefit, cooperation, altruism, reciprocal altruism, weak altruism, altruistic punishment, strong reciprocity, group selection and direct fitness; (ii) emphasize the need to distinguish between proximate (mechanism) and ultimate (survival value) explanations of behaviours. We draw examples from all areas, but especially recent work on humans and microbes.

/pdf/social-semantics-altruism-cooperation-mutualism-strong-3k3ka2y3w8.pdf

Social semantics: altruism, cooperation, mutualism, strong reciprocity and group selection.

Microorganisms communicate and cooperate to perform a wide range of multicellular behaviours, such as dispersal, nutrient acquisition, biofilm formation and quorum sensing. Microbiologists are rapidly gaining a greater understanding of the molecular mechanisms involved in these behaviours, and the underlying genetic regulation. Such behaviours are also interesting from the perspective of social evolution - why do microorganisms engage in these behaviours given that cooperative individuals can be exploited by selfish cheaters, who gain the benefit of cooperation without paying their share of the cost? There is great potential for interdisciplinary research in this fledgling field of sociomicrobiology, but a limiting factor is the lack of effective communication of social evolution theory to microbiologists. Here, we provide a conceptual overview of the different mechanisms through which cooperative behaviours can be stabilized, emphasizing the aspects most relevant to microorganisms, the novel problems that microorganisms pose and the new insights that can be gained from applying evolutionary theory to microorganisms.

Social evolution theory for microorganisms

Explaining altruistic cooperation is one of the greatest challenges for evolutionary biology1,2,3. One solution to this problem is if costly cooperative behaviours are directed towards relatives4,5. This idea of kin selection has been hugely influential and applied widely from microorganisms to vertebrates2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10. However, a problem arises if there is local competition for resources, because this leads to competition between relatives, reducing selection for cooperation3,11,12,13,14. Here we use an experimental evolution approach to test the effect of the scale of competition, and how it interacts with relatedness. The cooperative trait that we examine is the production of siderophores, iron-scavenging agents, in the pathogenic bacterium Pseudomonas aeruginosa15,16,17. As expected, our results show that higher levels of cooperative siderophore production evolve in the higher relatedness treatments. However, our results also show that more local competition selects for lower levels of siderophore production and that there is a significant interaction between relatedness and the scale of competition, with relatedness having less effect when the scale of competition is more local. More generally, the scale of competition is likely to be of particular importance for the evolution of cooperation in microorganisms, and also the virulence of pathogenic microorganisms, because cooperative traits such as siderophore production have an important role in determining virulence6,9,17,18,19.

/pdf/cooperation-and-competition-in-pathogenic-bacteria-53h5w9bdte.pdf

Cooperation and competition in pathogenic bacteria

http://people.exeter.ac.uk/plb205/Evolutionary%20Explanations%20for%20Cooperation.pdf

Evolutionary Explanations for Cooperation

Individuals are predicted to behave more altruistically and less competitively toward their relatives, because they share a relatively high proportion of their genes (e.g., one-half for siblings and one-eighth for cousins). Consequently, by helping a relative reproduce, an individual passes its genes to the next generation, increasing their Darwinian fitness. This idea, termed kin selection, has been applied to a wide range of phenomena in systems ranging from replicating molecules to humans. Nevertheless, competition between relatives can reduce, and even totally negate, the kin-selected benefits of altruism toward relatives. Recent theoretical work has clarified the processes and selective forces underlying this effect and has demonstrated the generality of the effect of competition between relatives.

/pdf/cooperation-and-competition-between-relatives-4876atxmmv.pdf

Ashleigh S. Griffin

Papers

Social semantics: altruism, cooperation, mutualism, strong reciprocity and group selection.

Social evolution theory for microorganisms

Cooperation and competition in pathogenic bacteria

Evolutionary Explanations for Cooperation

Cooperation and competition between relatives.