Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29061894›Full record

ReviewPhilosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences2017

Cooperation and cheating as innovation: insights from cellular societies.

Athena Aktipis, Carlo C Maley

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Networks of reliable reputations and cooperation: a review.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2021
    Review
  7. Innovation: an emerging focus from cells to societies.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2017
    Article
  8. The origin of heredity in protocells.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2017
    Article
  9. Nascent life cycles and the emergence of higher-level individuality.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2017
    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

2 authors.

Athena AktipisDepartment of Psychology, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85281, USA aktipis@asu.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7128-670X
Carlo C MaleyDepartment of Psychology, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85281, USA.

Funding

PHYLOGENIES of Barrett's Esophagus LineagesP01CA091955 · NCI · FRED HUTCHINSON CANCER RESEARCH CENTER · PI GRADY, WILLIAM MALLORY · 2002 to 2019
$35.9M
Modeling Neoplastic Progression in Barrett's Esophagus - Renewal -2R01CA140657 · NCI · WISTAR INSTITUTE · PI Carlo Maley · 2009 to 2026
$5.0M
(PQC3) Genomic Diversity and Microenvironment as Drivers of Metastasis in DCISR01CA185138 · NCI · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI HWANG, E.SHELLEY, MALEY, CARLO · 2014 to 2017
$2.0M
NCI NIH HHS P01 CA091955NCI NIH HHS R01 CA140657NCI NIH HHS R01 CA185138
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The capacity to innovate is often considered a defining feature of human societies, but it is not a capacity that is unique to human societies: innovation occurs in cellular societies as well. Cellular societies such as multicellular bodies and microbial communities, including the human microbiome, are capable of innovation in response to novel opportunities and threats. Multicellularity represents a suite of innovations for cellular cooperation, but multicellularity also opened up novel opportunities for cells to cheat, exploiting the infrastructure and resources of the body. Multicellular bodies evolve less quickly than the cells within them, leaving them vulnerable to cellular innovations that can lead to cancer and infections. In order to counter these threats, multicellular bodies deploy additional innovations including the adaptive immune system and the development of partnerships with preferred microbial partners. What can we learn from examining these innovations in cooperation and cheating in cellular societies? First, innovation in social systems involves a constant tension between novel mechanisms that enable greater size and complexity of cooperative entities and novel ways of cheating. Second, cultivating cooperation with partners who can rapidly and effectively innovate (such as microbes) is important for large entities including multicellular bodies. And third, multicellularity enabled cells to manage risk socially, allowing organisms to survive in challenging environments where life would otherwise be impossible. Throughout, we ask how insights from cellular societies might be translated into new innovations in human health and medicine, promoting and protecting the cellular cooperation that makes us viable multicellular organisms.This article is part of the themed issue 'Process and pattern in innovations from cells to societies'.

Indexed as

Biological EvolutionEukaryotaMicrobiotaCooperative BehaviorMicrobial InteractionsModels, Biologicalautoimmune disorderscancerinfectious diseasemicrobiomemulticellularity

Identifiers

PMID29061894
PMCPMC5665809

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.