ArticleProceedings. Biological sciences2021
Evaluating kin and group selection as tools for quantitative analysis of microbial data.
Article in Proceedings. Biological sciences, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Evaluating kin and group selection as tools for quantitative analysis of microbial data.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Kin selection and multilevel selection theory are often used to interpret experiments about the evolution of cooperation and social behaviour among microbes. But while these experiments provide rich, detailed fitness data, theory is mostly used as a conceptual heuristic. Here, we evaluate how kin and multilevel selection theory perform as quantitative analysis tools. We reanalyse published microbial datasets and show that the canonical fitness models of both theories are almost always poor fits because they use statistical regressions misspecified for the strong selection and non-additive effects we show are widespread in microbial systems. We identify analytical practices in empirical research that suggest how theory might be improved, and show that analysing both individual and group fitness outcomes helps clarify the biology of selection. A data-driven approach to theory thus shows how kin and multilevel selection both have untapped potential as tools for quantitative understanding of social evolution in all branches of life.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.