Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26690946›Full record

ArticlePLoS computational biology2015

Defectors Can Create Conditions That Rescue Cooperation.

Adam James Waite, Caroline Cannistra, Wenying Shou

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS computational biology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Adam James WaiteMolecular and Cellular Biology Program, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, United States of America.
Caroline CannistraDivision of Basic Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington, United States of America.
Wenying ShouDivision of Basic Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington, United States of America.

Funding

Cellular Cooperation and Cheating: an Experimental and Mathematical AnalysisDP2OD006498 · OD · FRED HUTCHINSON CANCER RESEARCH CENTER · PI SHOU, WENYING · 2009 to 2009
$2.6M
FHCRC High-Performance Computing ClusterS10OD020069 · OD · FRED HUTCHINSON CANCER RESEARCH CENTER · PI KOOPERBERG, CHARLES L · 2015 to 2015
$600k
NIH HHS 1 DP2 OD006498-01NIH HHS DP2 OD006498NIH HHS S10 OD020069
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cooperation based on the production of costly common goods is observed throughout nature. This is puzzling, as cooperation is vulnerable to exploitation by defectors which enjoy a fitness advantage by consuming the common good without contributing fairly. Depletion of the common good can lead to population collapse and the destruction of cooperation. However, population collapse implies small population size, which, in a structured population, is known to favor cooperation. This happens because small population size increases variability in cooperator frequency across different locations. Since individuals in cooperator-dominated locations (which are most likely cooperators) will grow more than those in defector-dominated locations (which are most likely defectors), cooperators can outgrow defectors globally despite defectors outgrowing cooperators in each location. This raises the possibility that defectors can lead to conditions that sometimes rescue cooperation from defector-induced destruction. We demonstrate multiple mechanisms through which this can occur, using an individual-based approach to model stochastic birth, death, migration, and mutation events. First, during defector-induced population collapse, defectors occasionally go extinct before cooperators by chance, which allows cooperators to grow. Second, empty locations, either preexisting or created by defector-induced population extinction, can favor cooperation because they allow cooperator but not defector migrants to grow. These factors lead to the counterintuitive result that the initial presence of defectors sometimes allows better survival of cooperation compared to when defectors are initially absent. Finally, we find that resource limitation, inducible by defectors, can select for mutations adaptive to resource limitation. When these mutations are initially present at low levels or continuously generated at a moderate rate, they can favor cooperation by further reducing local population size. We predict that in a structured population, small population sizes precipitated by defectors provide a "built-in" mechanism for the persistence of cooperation.

Indexed as

Biological EvolutionCooperative BehaviorGenetics, PopulationModels, GeneticAltruismEcosystemGame TheoryGenetic FitnessModels, StatisticalMutationPopulation Density

Identifiers

PMID26690946
PMCPMC4687000

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.