Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32635866›Full record

ArticleProceedings. Biological sciences2020

Evolution of division of labour in mutualistic symbiosis.

Yu Uchiumi, Akira Sasaki

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings. Biological sciences, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Life history and the evolutionary loss of parental care.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2022
    Article
  2. 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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Yu UchiumiDepartment of Evolutionary Studies of Biosystems, The Graduate University for Advanced Studies, SOKENDAI, Hayama, Kanagawa 240-0193, Japan.
Akira SasakiDepartment of Evolutionary Studies of Biosystems, The Graduate University for Advanced Studies, SOKENDAI, Hayama, Kanagawa 240-0193, Japan.
International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis · ATThe Graduate University for Advanced Studies, SOKENDAI · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Mutualistic symbiosis can be regarded as interspecific division of labour, which can improve the productivity of metabolites and services but deteriorate the ability to live without partners. Interestingly, even in environmentally acquired symbiosis, involved species often rely exclusively on the partners despite the lethal risk of missing partners. To examine this paradoxical evolution, we explored the coevolutionary dynamics in symbiotic species for the amount of investment in producing their essential metabolites, which symbiotic species can share. Our study has shown that, even if obtaining partners is difficult, 'perfect division of labour' (PDL) can be maintained evolutionarily, where each species perfectly specializes in producing one of the essential metabolites so that every member entirely depends on the others for survival, i.e. in exchange for losing the ability of living alone. Moreover, the coevolutionary dynamics shows multistability with other states including a state without any specialization. It can cause evolutionary hysteresis: once PDL has been achieved evolutionarily when obtaining partners was relatively easy, it is not reverted even if obtaining partners becomes difficult later. Our study suggests that obligate mutualism with a high degree of mutual specialization can evolve and be maintained easier than previously thought.

Indexed as

AnimalsBiological EvolutionEcosystemSymbiosisdivision of labourevolution of specialist and generalisthorizontal transmissionmutualismsymbiosis

Identifiers

PMID32635866
PMCPMC7423485
OpenAlexW3041658140

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.