Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26216986›Full record

ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2015

Socially mediated induction and suppression of antibiosis during bacterial coexistence.

Monica I Abrudan, Fokko Smakman, Ard Jan Grimbergen, Sanne Westhoff, Eric L Miller, Gilles P van Wezel, Daniel E Rozen

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 116 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
116citing papers in PubMed
18.3field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

116 citing papers in PubMed, 246 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Factors that influence the caste ratio in a bacterial division of labour.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2025
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review

56 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Monica I AbrudanInstitute of Biology, Leiden University, Sylviusweg 72, 2333 BE, Leiden, The Netherlands; Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, United Kingdom;
Fokko SmakmanInstitute of Biology, Leiden University, Sylviusweg 72, 2333 BE, Leiden, The Netherlands;
Ard Jan GrimbergenInstitute of Biology, Leiden University, Sylviusweg 72, 2333 BE, Leiden, The Netherlands; Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, University of Groningen, 9747 AG Groningen, The Netherlands;
Sanne WesthoffInstitute of Biology, Leiden University, Sylviusweg 72, 2333 BE, Leiden, The Netherlands;
Eric L MillerInstitute of Biology, Leiden University, Sylviusweg 72, 2333 BE, Leiden, The Netherlands; Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, United Kingdom;
Gilles P van WezelInstitute of Biology, Leiden University, Sylviusweg 72, 2333 BE, Leiden, The Netherlands; Microbial Ecology, Netherlands Institute of Ecology (NIOO-KNAW), 6708 PB Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Daniel E RozenInstitute of Biology, Leiden University, Sylviusweg 72, 2333 BE, Leiden, The Netherlands; d.e.rozen@biology.leidenuniv.nl.
Leiden University · NLNetherlands Institute of Ecology · NLUniversity of Groningen · NLUniversity of Manchester · GB

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite their importance for humans, there is little consensus on the function of antibiotics in nature for the bacteria that produce them. Classical explanations suggest that bacteria use antibiotics as weapons to kill or inhibit competitors, whereas a recent alternative hypothesis states that antibiotics are signals that coordinate cooperative social interactions between coexisting bacteria. Here we distinguish these hypotheses in the prolific antibiotic-producing genus Streptomyces and provide strong evidence that antibiotics are weapons whose expression is significantly influenced by social and competitive interactions between competing strains. We show that cells induce facultative responses to cues produced by competitors by (i) increasing their own antibiotic production, thereby decreasing costs associated with constitutive synthesis of these expensive products, and (ii) by suppressing antibiotic production in competitors, thereby reducing direct threats to themselves. These results thus show that although antibiotic production is profoundly social, it is emphatically not cooperative. Using computer simulations, we next show that these facultative strategies can facilitate the maintenance of biodiversity in a community context by converting lethal interactions between neighboring colonies to neutral interactions where neither strain excludes the other. Thus, just as bacteriocins can lead to increased diversity via rock-paper-scissors dynamics, so too can antibiotics via elicitation and suppression. Our results reveal that social interactions are crucial for understanding antibiosis and bacterial community dynamics, and highlight the potential of interbacterial interactions for novel drug discovery by eliciting pathways that mediate interference competition.

Indexed as

Anti-Bacterial AgentsStreptomycesAnti-Bacterial Agentsantibioticscompetition sensingmicrobial ecologysociomicrobiologyStreptomyces

Identifiers

PMID26216986
PMCPMC4568218
OpenAlexW2118062406

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.