Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29967163›Full record

ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2018

Costs and benefits of provocation in bacterial warfare.

Diego Gonzalez, Akshay Sabnis, Kevin R Foster, Despoina A I Mavridou

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed
17.2field-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

29 citing papers in PubMed, 50 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Nutrients and flow shape the cyclic dominance games betweenPhilosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2023
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Suicidal chemotaxis in bacteria.Nature communications · 2022
    Article
  12. Article
  13. International journal of molecular sciences · 2022
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Diego GonzalezDepartment of Zoology, University of Oxford, OX1 3PS Oxford, United Kingdom; diego.gonzalez@unil.ch d.mavridou@imperial.ac.uk.
Akshay SabnisMedical Research Council Centre for Molecular Bacteriology and Infection, Department of Life Sciences, Imperial College London, London SW7 2DD, United Kingdom.
Kevin R FosterDepartment of Zoology, University of Oxford, OX1 3PS Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-4687-6633
Despoina A I MavridouMedical Research Council Centre for Molecular Bacteriology and Infection, Department of Life Sciences, Imperial College London, London SW7 2DD, United Kingdom diego.gonzalez@unil.ch d.mavridou@imperial.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-7449-1151
Imperial College London · GBUniversity of Oxford · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/M009505/1Medical Research Council MR/P028225/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Competition in animals involves a wide variety of aggressive behaviors. One of the most sophisticated strategies for a focal actor is to provoke a competitor into uncontrolled aggression toward other competitors. Like animals, bacteria rely on a broad spectrum of molecular weapons, some of which provoke potential rivals by triggering retaliation. While bacterial provocation is well documented, its potential adaptive value has received little attention. Here, we examine the costs and benefits of provocation using mathematical modeling and experiments with

Indexed as

Biological WarfareBiological Warfare AgentsEscherichia coliModels, BiologicalAnimalsHumansBiological Warfare Agentsbacterial communitiescolicincompetitionprovocationsocial evolution

Identifiers

PMID29967163
PMCPMC6055196
OpenAlexW2809782019

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.