Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42713060›Full record

ReviewiScience2026

Bottlenecked reproduction enables cooperating bacteria to purge cheaters.

Khwannarin Khemsom, Camila Perdoncini Carvalho, Junping Han, Feng Qu

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in iScience, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Khwannarin KhemsomDepartment of Plant Pathology, The Ohio State University, Wooster, OH, USA.
Camila Perdoncini CarvalhoDepartment of Plant Pathology, The Ohio State University, Wooster, OH, USA.
Junping HanDepartment of Plant Pathology, The Ohio State University, Wooster, OH, USA.
Feng QuDepartment of Plant Pathology, The Ohio State University, Wooster, OH, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Bacteria engage in social cooperations to ensure survival and reproduction in adverse environments. Numerous bacterial sociality genes (SGs) are dedicated to such cooperations. Mutant bacteria carrying loss-of-function mutations (LOFMs) in SGs are frequently shielded from purifying selection by cooperative wild-type peers. Yet, in absence of active purging, such mutants would persist and proliferate in bacterial populations, ultimately crippling cooperation. We propose the hypothesis of bottlenecked reproduction at foci of cooperation (BRFC) to address this problem. This hypothesis stipulates that bacterial reproduction at foci of cooperative colonization is bottlenecked, allowing extremely few individuals to initiate proliferation and dispersal. Note that mutant individuals carrying SG LOFMs are just as likely to escape as their wild-type peers. However, if this is to occur, the resulting mutant lineage, upon dispersing to a new site, would fail at renewed reproduction. Interrogation of this hypothesis should unveil bacterial vulnerabilities that can be exploited to combat bacterial diseases.

Indexed as

bacterial cooperationbiofilmbottlenecked reproductionloss-of-function mutationnatural selectionpurifying selectionquorum sensingsocial cheatersociality genetype 3 secretion system

Identifiers

PMID42713060
PMCPMC13551922

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.