Acknowledging selection at sub-organismal levels resolves controversy on pro-cooperation mechanisms

Abstract
Introduction
Appendix
References
Article and author information
Metrics

Abstract

Cooperators who pay a cost to produce publically-available benefits can be exploited by cheaters who do not contribute fairly. How might cooperation persist against cheaters? Two classes of mechanisms are known to promote cooperation: 'partner choice', where a cooperator preferentially interacts with cooperative over cheating partners; and 'partner fidelity feedback', where repeated interactions between individuals ensure that cheaters suffer as their cooperative partners languish (see, for example, Momeni et al., 2013). However when both mechanisms can act, differentiating them has generated controversy. Here, I resolve this controversy by noting that selection can operate on organismal and sub-organismal 'entities' such that partner fidelity feedback at sub-organismal level can appear as partner choice at organismal level. I also show that cooperation between multicellular eukaryotes and mitochondria is promoted by partner fidelity feedback and partner choice between sub-organismal entities, in addition to being promoted by partner fidelity feedback between hosts and symbionts, as was previously known.

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.10106.001

Introduction

Cooperation: why is it important and how can it persist?

Cooperation is wide-spread (Axelrod and Hamilton, 1981; Sachs et al., 2004; West et al., 2006; Frederickson, 2013). Cooperation is thought to drive major evolutionary transitions such as the emergence of eukaryotes and multicellularity (Maynard Smith and Szathmary, 1998). Cooperation between pathogenic microbes can worsen microbial infection (Sandoz et al., 2007; Falsetta et al., 2014). Cooperation between cells in tumor microenvironment can hasten cancer progression (Rattigan et al., 2012; Cleary et al., 2014). In industrial fermentation, we strive to keep microbes in a cooperative state (producing products useful to us despite the metabolic burden to microbes), and exploit inter-species cooperation to increase product yield (Zhou et al., 2011). Thus, understanding cooperation has broad implications in basic and applied biology.

Cooperation poses an evolutionary puzzle. A cooperator pays a cost to help other individuals. If other individuals cooperate by reciprocating, then the original cooperator may enjoy a net gain. However, other individuals are better off not reciprocating ('cheating'), in which case, the original cooperator will suffer a net loss. How might cooperation evolve and persist despite the incentive to cheat?

To state more formally, let us consider a community of interacting (Appendix note 1) individuals. A focal cooperator pays a net fitness cost (Appendix note 2) to generate benefits that can be shared or exchanged (Appendix note 3) with partners. Partners may belong to the same species as the focal cooperator (e.g. kin cooperation, Figure 1A) or a different species (mutualistic cooperation, Figure 1B). Partners may cooperate by reciprocating to the focal cooperator a similar benefit (homotypic cooperation, Figure 1A) or a different costly benefit (heterotypic cooperation, Figure 1B) (Appendix note 4), or cheat by not reciprocating (Figure 1A and Figure 1B, unfilled blue). When cooperative and cheating partners share equal access to the focal cooperator, under certain circumstances cheating partners will always be more fit than cooperative partners (Appendix note 5). In this case, cooperation may persist only if the community is partitioned into interaction groups (groups) (Appendix note 6) that are sufficiently variable in cooperator frequency (Price, 1970; Trivers, 1971; Bull and Rice, 1991; Frank, 1994; 1997; Foster and Wenseleers, 2006; Fletcher and Doebeli, 2009) (Figure 2). This way, since cooperator-dominated groups will produce more cooperative benefits than cheater-dominated groups, individuals in cooperator-dominated groups (likely cooperators) will reproduce more than individuals in cheater-dominated groups (likely cheaters). Consequently, cooperator frequency can increase in a community despite decreasing in each group (Figure 2).

Figure 1

Download asset Open asset

Examples of cooperation, cheating, partner choice (PC), and partner fidelity feedback (PFF).

(A) An example of homotypic (sharing an identical benefit) and kin (between genetic relatives) cooperation, and cheating. During iron limitation, a focal cooperative *Pseudomonas aeruginosa* cell (grey filled oval) pays a fitness cost to synthesize siderophores (grey triangles, color indicating origin) which are released into the environment to scavenge iron. Siderophore-Fe³⁺ complex can be taken up by the focal bacterium and partner cells. A cooperative partner (blue filled oval) also contributes siderophores which can be used by the focal cooperator. In contrast, a cheating partner (blue unfilled oval) uses siderophores without contributing any, and is competitively superior to cooperators (Griffin et al., 2004). (B) An example of heterotypic (exchanging different benefits) and mutualistic (between different species) cooperation, and cheating. In the obligatory cooperation between a yucca (grey) and yucca moths, moths can cooperate (left) or cheat (right). (C) In PC, a focal individual (grey) displays different responses ('conditional response', i and ii) or a fixed response ('screening', iii) that favors cooperative over cheating partners. (i and ii) A focal client (grey, bottom) will preferentially visit a cleaner (smaller blue fish) if the cleaner previously cooperated with (filled blue) instead of cheated (unfilled blue) another client (yellow, top) (Bshary and Grutter, 2006) or the focal client itself (grey, top) (Bshary and Schäffer, 2002). Cooperative cleaners only eat parasites (black squares), while cheating cleaners bite off nutritious client tissue. Thus, PC can operate before (i) or after (ii) interactions with partners. (iii) A focal cooperative yeast cell (grey) pays a fitness cost to express cell surface adhesive proteins. The focal adhesive cell will bind better to other adhesive cooperators (filled blue) than to non-adhesive cheaters (unfilled blue). This differential binding (solid versus dashed grey box) favors cooperation between adhesive cells, and allows the formation of cell clumps with enhanced stress resistance (Smukalla et al., 2008). (D) Cooperation between hosts (grey) and endosymbionts such as mitochondria (blue) has been traditionally used to illustrate PFF (Sachs et al., 2004; 2011). Cooperative mitochondria (filled blue) serve the host cell at a cost to their own reproduction, and are therefore displaced by cheating mitochondria (unfilled blue) in the same cell (center panel). However, vertical transmission of mitochondria means that host and mitochondria repeatedly interact with each other. This ensures that mitochondria will harm their own fitness if they do not serve their host (compare left with right). Consequently, cooperative mitochondria can persist (compare bottom with top) if their frequency varies greatly among different hosts. For this and all following figures, filled and unfilled symbols differentiate cooperative versus cheating partners.

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.10106.003

Figure 2

Download asset Open asset

Variability in group cooperator frequency promotes cooperation.

(A) Rules of interactions: A cooperator (filled circle) gives birth to a cooperator and helps each of the rest of group members to sire one additional offspring before dying. A cheater (unfilled circle) gives birth to two cheaters and offers no help to other group members before dying. (B) Community-wide cooperator frequency can increase over time when groups vary significantly in their cooperator frequencies (left), but not when they share similar cooperator frequencies (right). Suppose that after group formation and interactions and reproduction of individuals in a group, a group with initial cooperator frequency P will have final size π and final cooperator frequency of $P'$ . The Price equation states that $\bar{π} Δ \bar{P} = C o v (π, P) + A v e (π Δ P)$ , where $\bar{π}$ is the average final group size, $Δ \bar{P} = \bar{P}' - \bar{P}$ is the difference between $\bar{P}'$ and $\bar{P}$ , the final and initial community-wide cooperator frequency, respectively. $C o v (π, P)$ , the covariance between final group size and initial cooperator frequency of group, should be positive. It may be rewritten as *βVar(P),* and should increase as *Var(P)*, the variance in initial cooperator frequency P across groups, increases. $A v e (π Δ P)$ reflects $Δ P$ , the change in cooperator frequency in each group, and should thus be negative. Consequently, for community-wide cooperator frequency to increase, the absolute value of $C o v (π, P)$ must exceed that of $A v e (π Δ P)$ . A numerical demonstration of the Price Equation is provided below. In the case on the left, two groups form. The group starting with 1 cooperator (G₁) has an initial cooperator frequency of *P_G1*=1/6, and ends up with final group size *π_G1*= 16 and final cooperator frequency *P_G1’*=1/16. The group starting with 5 cooperators (G₅) has an initial cooperator frequency of *P_G5*=5/6, and ends up with final group size *π_G5*= 32 and final cooperator frequency *P_G5’*=25/32. The average group size $\bar{π}$ is (16+32)/2=24 while the change in global cooperator frequency is $Δ \bar{P}$ =26/48−6/12=0.042. Thus, $\bar{π} Δ \bar{P}$ is 1. $C o v (π, P) = E [(π - \bar{π}) (P - \bar{P})]$ , where *E[X]* represents the expected value of X. Here, 1 out of 2 groups started with 1 cooperator and 1 out of 2 groups started with 5 cooperators. Thus, $C o v (π, P) =$ $0.5 (π_{G 1} - \bar{π}) (P_{G 1} - \bar{P}) + 0.5 (π_{G 5} - \bar{π}) (P_{G 5} - \bar{P}) =$ $0.5 (16 - 24) (\frac{1}{6} - \frac{26}{48}) +$ $0.5 (32 - 24) (\frac{5}{6} - \frac{26}{48}) = 2.67$ ; $A v e [π (Δ P)] =$ $0.5 π_{G 1} (P_{G 1}' - P_{G 1}) +$ $0.5 π_{G 5} (P_{G 5}' - P_{G 5}) =$ $0.5 \times 16 \times (\frac{1}{16} - \frac{1}{6}) +$ $0.5 \times 32 (\frac{25}{32} - \frac{5}{6}) = - 1.67$ . Hence, $C o v (π, P) + A v e (π Δ P)$ is also 1, equal to $\bar{π} Δ \bar{P}$ . This figure is simplified from a lecture given by Prof. Benjamin Kerr (University of Washington, Seattle).

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.10106.004

Current definitions of partner choice and partner fidelity feedback

Identifying orthogonal mechanisms that independently promote cooperation will help us understand contributions from different sources. This will in turn move us closer toward predicting the persistence of cooperation in a natural or an industrial system.

Several conceptual frameworks have attempted to classify pro-cooperation mechanisms (Sachs et al., 2004; Nowak, 2006; Lehmann and Keller, 2006; West et al., 2007). Unlike most frameworks which focus on kin cooperation, the framework by Sachs et al. considers both kin and mutualistic cooperation. It classifies pro-cooperation mechanisms known under a plethora of names ('kin selection', 'host sanctioning/policing', 'green beard', 'reciprocity' - to name a few) to either 'partner choice (PC)' or 'partner fidelity feedback (PFF)' (Sachs et al., 2004) (Appendix note 7).

In PC, a focal cooperator 'recognizes' and 'chooses' cooperative instead of cheating partners to interact with. Choice can occur before (Figure 1C,i) or after (Figure 1C,ii) interacting with partners ('conditional response') (Sachs et al., 2004). Archetti et al. has broadened PC to include 'screening' where a focal individual displays a single fixed response, but this response favors cooperative over cheating partners (Archetti et al., 2011a; 2011b) (Figure 1C,iii; Figure 3D). Thus, PC causes cooperator frequency to vary among groups as a focal cooperator favors cooperative over cheating partners during (Figure 1C) or after (Figure 3D) the formation of interaction groups. This leaves cheating partners isolated in groups devoid of cooperators.

Figure 3

Download asset Open asset

In PFF, individuals are "associated for an extended series of exchanges that last long enough that a feedback operates" (Sachs et al., 2004). That is, during repeated interactions (e.g. in a spatially-structured environment), an individual who does not help its cooperative partner will eventually suffer because its cooperative partner suffers (Figure 1D) or even dies. In PFF, high inter-group variability in cooperator frequency, which is required for promoting cooperation, can be achieved via population bottlenecks (drastic reductions in population sizes) (Brockhurst and Svensson, 2007; Chuang et al., 2009; Nadell et al., 2010; Harcombe, 2010; Van Dyken et al., 2013; Datta et al., 2013; van Gestel et al., 2014; Waite et al., 2015) (Appendix note 8). For example in kin cooperation, interaction groups originating from single individuals will comprise the founder and its progenies, thus exhibiting a cooperator frequency of either 1 or 0 depending on whether the founder is a cooperator or a cheater. Population bottlenecks can be realized through range expansion of a few individuals to new locations (Hallatschek et al., 2007; Mitri et al., 2015, population dilutions (Chuang et al., 2009), population crashes caused by cheaters (Waite et al., 2015), and selection for rare adaptive mutants (Morgan et al., 2012; Waite and Shou, 2012; Asfahl et al., 2015).

Sachs et al framework is compatible with or simplifies other conceptual frameworks (Appendix note 9). For example in kin cooperation, Hamilton’s “'kin discrimination' and 'viscous population' (Hamilton, 1964a; Hamilton, 1964b) would correspond to PC and PFF, respectively. To summarize current knowledge, PC promotes cooperation through 'active' recognition/screening by a focal individual. In contrast, PFF promotes cooperation through repeated interactions among group members in groups where cooperator frequencies vary significantly due to stochasticity.

Ambiguities associated with current interpretations of PFF and PC

What differentiates PC and PFF? Sachs et al. pointed out that unlike PFF, PC does not require repeated interactions between individuals (Sachs et al., 2004). This is certainly true. However, PC can lead to PFF (e.g. a client fish returning again and again to the same cooperative cleaner fish [(Bshary and Schäffer, 2002]), thus blurring the distinction between PC and PFF.

Sachs et al. and other further suggested that unlike PC, PFF is 'automatic', 'passive', and 'does not require recognition or conditional response' (Sachs et al., 2004; Foster and Wenseleers, 2006). However, definitions of these terms are unclear. For example, a biochemist might interpret 'passive' as not requiring ATP (e.g. passive diffusion), while a geneticist might interpret 'passive' as not requiring genes (e.g. death from some environmental assaults does not require gene activities). To further illustrate this problem, let’s examine PFF acting alone in the absence of PC in a community of engineered yeast strains (Momeni et al., 2013). In this community, adenine-requiring cooperators release lysine ([A− L+]) while lysine-requiring partners cooperate by reciprocating adenine ([L− A+]) or cheat by not reciprocating adenine ([L−]) (Figure 3A). Supplying metabolites is costly (e.g. [L−] is more fit than [L− A+]) (Waite and Shou, 2012; Momeni et al., 2013). PC does not operate here: lysine released from a focal [A− L+] cell is available to both [L−] and [L− A+]. In a spatially-structured environment (e.g. on an agarose pad) without adenine or lysine supplements, [A− L+] and [L− A+] physically mix and grow to form tall 'hills' while cheating [L−] segregate to 'foothills' and fail to grow tall (Figure 3A). Consistent with this being PFF, disruption of repeated interactions via frequent mixing favors cheater [L−] over cooperator [L− A+]. Furthermore, population bottleneck during spatial range expansion (Hallatschek et al., 2007; Mitri et al., 2015), which presumably increases variability in cooperator frequency across different locations, favors cooperator (L− A+] over cheater (L−] (Momeni et al., 2013). However one could argue, albeit somewhat absurdly, that this PFF relies on the fact that cells can 'recognize' metabolites from partners via permeases and mount 'conditional responses' (growth versus no growth to cooperative versus cheating partners). And this process is not 'passive' either, because cell growth requires energy and numerous genes.

Difficulties in distinguishing PFF and PC can lead to controversy, especially when interactions occur in a spatially-structured environment where both PFF and PC can operate. In fact, mutualisms such as those between fig trees and fig wasps (Jander and Herre, 2010), between yuccas and yucca moths (Pellmyr and Huth, 1994), and between legumes and rhizobia (Kiers et al., 2003) have been thought to be stabilized by PC by some authors (Sachs et al., 2004; Kiers et al., 2011) and PFF by other (Archetti et al., 2011a; Weyl et al., 2010). For example, in yucca-yucca moth mutualisms, a yucca selectively aborts flowers dominated by cheating pollinator offspring (Pellmyr and Huth, 1994). The PC camp argues that a plant partitions its resource into separate flowers, and 'decides' whether a flower has enough cheating pollinators to be aborted (Sachs et al., 2004). The PFF camp counters that flower abortion is not PC, but rather the fitness consequence of being damaged by cheating pollinators during excessive oviposition, since experimentally-inflicted damages also trigger flower abortion (Weyl et al., 2010; Archetti et al., 2011a; Weyl et al., 2011).

This controversy has led to the proposal of an alternative criterion for distinguishing PFF and PC: If an individual’s response is specific to the cheating behavior of a partner, then PC operates; if the response is toward general stress (which may or may not be inflicted by a cheating partner), then PFF operates (Archetti et al., 2011a). However, this alternative criterion can also encounter difficulties. Suppose that PC initially did not exist. It would seem reasonable that an evolved response to cheater-specific signals should be channeled to preexisting stress-response pathways which are already in place to facilitate survival. That is, flower abortion in response to physical damages does not preclude the possibility that the same flower abortion pathway can also be activated by cheater-specific signals. Thus, a clear criterion to differentiate PFF and PC is, to date, lacking (Appendix note 10).

Defining PC and PFF in terms of 'entities'

In hierarchically-organized biological systems, interactions and selections can occur at multiple (including sub-organismal) levels. The controversy above arises from attempting to compress a multi-level process into a single-level process. If instead we consider 'entities' at multiple levels and allow PC and PFF to act on these entities, then this controversy is resolved.

Definition of entity

A biological entity (entity) is a biological structure with a boundary such that the birth, or growth, or survival, or death of an entity is separable from that of other similar entities due to chemical or physical coupling within an entity and the lack of equivalent coupling between entities (Appendix note 11). An organism such as a yucca is an entity, because different parts of the yucca are coupled not only physically but also chemically (e.g. metabolism), and because equivalent intra-yucca coupling does not exist between yuccas. Consequently, the birth, or growth, or survival, or death of a yucca can be separated from other similar entities (Appendix note 12). Ascending above organism, an entity can be a collection of organisms. For example, a yucca and its internal moth offspring together can be considered an entity (Appendix note 13). This is because moth offspring depend on host yucca for survival, and this dependency does not extend to another yucca. The collection of moth offspring inside a yucca is also an entity, because the survival of these moth offspring are coupled through the survival of their shared host yucca, and such coupling does not exist with moth offspring in another yucca. Similarly, an ant colony where the task of maintaining the colony is divided among different castes is also an entity. In contrast, a collection of trees in a forest of similar trees does not constitute an entity, because coupling within a collection (e.g. competition between trees within the collection) extends to between collections. Descending below organism, an entity can also be an organismal part. For example, a yucca flower is an entity because it can be aborted independently of other flowers. Similarly, a yucca flower and its internal moth offspring together can be considered an entity, and the collection of moth offspring inside a yucca flower can also be considered an entity. Cells or gametes are entities in a multicellular organism, because they can divide and/or die independently of other similar entities. Similarly, mitochondria are entities in a cell, and mitochondrial genomes (mtDNAs) are independently replicating entities in a mitochondrion (see section below). Thus, an entity (e.g. a yucca-and its internal moth larvae) can contain smaller entities (e.g. the moth larvae; the yucca) which contain even smaller entities (e.g. flowers) which contain even smaller entities (e.g. cells, mitochondria, mtDNAs), reflecting the hierarchical organization of multicellular organisms (Appendix note 14).

Revised definition of PC

PC requires that a focal cooperative entity can direct more cooperative benefits to cooperative over cheating partner entities despite their spatial equivalence (Appendix note 15) (Figure 3B left, Figure 3C). To a focal entity, partner entities are spatially-equivalent if the focal entity would have interacted with partner entities equally had they been identical. For example, partner entities of equal distance to a focal entity can be spatially-equivalent, so are partner entities in a well-mixed environment. As discussed earlier, PC may be achieved through conditional response of the focal entity or screening by the focal entity. I emphasize that PC must occur between a focal cooperative entity (instead of a focal entity population) and partner entities. Otherwise, PFF could be mis-interpreted as PC (Appendix note 16). In essence, my definition of PC can serve as a definition for terms such as 'active' or 'recognition'.

Revised definition of PFF

Let us now consider potential mechanisms that promote cooperation when PC does not exist or does not operate fully (Appendix note 17) to exclude all cheaters. One mechanism orthogonal to PC is PFF. PFF requires the formation of interaction groups that vary significantly in cooperator frequency due to stochasticity and that last long enough so that cooperators benefit from their cooperative acts (Figure 3B right, Figure 3C). PFF can operate within a population of entities (e.g. homotypic cooperation in Figure 3D) or between populations of entities (e.g. heterotypic cooperation in Figure 1D and Figure 3A). As an example of PFF, let’s consider 'proportional tit for tat (pTFT)', a game theory strategy. In pTFT, the focal individual starts cooperating and subsequently cooperates with a probability equal to the fraction of cooperative partners from the previous round of interactions (Hilbe et al., 2014). PC does not operate in pTFT, since the focal individual does not differentiate cooperative versus cheating partners in the same interaction group. Indeed, for pTFT to survive cheaters, both requirements of PFF must be satisfied: repeated interactions in groups and large variation in the frequency of pTFT across groups (Axelrod and Hamilton, 1981).

PC and PFF can act synergistically, an idea compatible with existing mathematical framework (e.g. Eq. 1a in [Foster and Wenseleers, 2006]) and can be found in the anti-competition cooperation among bacteria (Figure 3D) (Chao and Levin, 1981).

Experimental tests of PC and PFF

The revised definition of PC leads to a conceptually simple experimental test. One can place partner entities of varying cooperative qualities at the same distance to the focal entity or together in a well-mixed environment. One can then test whether the focal entity preferentially directs benefit to the cooperative instead of cheating partner entity. If so, then PC operates.

To experimentally demonstrate the contribution of PFF in promoting cooperation, one will need to compare cooperator frequency when both PFF and PC are operative (e.g. in a spatially-structured environment) with when only PC is operative (e.g. in a well-mixed environment). Such an example is provided in Figure 3D. However, this experiment is sometimes not possible to do. For example, if PC also relies on a spatially-structured environment (e.g. a focal entity senses spatial gradients of benefits emanating from partner entities), then a well-mixed environment will destroy both PFF and PC. In this case, one can compare cooperator frequency when PFF acts alone (in a spatially-structured environment where PC has been mutationally inactivated) with when neither PFF nor PC is operative (in a well-mixed environment with PC mutationally inactivated).

Ideally, one would quantify processes involved in PC and PFF, and mathematically model how they contribute to cooperator survival. I illustrate how to do so using the bacterial anti-competition cooperation as an example (Figure 3D, Appendix note 18). If predictions on cooperator frequency match experimental observations without 'tweaking' experimentally-measured model parameters, then there is no need to invoke additional pro-cooperation mechanisms. Otherwise, we will need to look deeper into potential causes of model-experiment mismatch.

Revisiting yucca-yucca moth cooperation

We now return to the cooperation between yuccas and yucca moths. Selection against cheating pollinators can occur via PC between a focal yucca and its internal pollinator offspring (Figure 3E, left). This is because despite the spatial equivalence of pollinator offspring (i.e. all in the yucca), the focal yucca can selectively abort flowers dominated by cheating pollinator offspring. However, we can also view this as PFF between yucca flowers and pollinator offspring (Figure 3E, right). Note that since a focal flower can not discriminate its internal, spatially-equivalent pollinator offspring, PC does not operate here. Instead, PFF between flowers and pollinator offspring requires the spatially-structured environment defined by flowers (Appendix note 19). In summary, a single mechanism (aborting cheater-dominated flowers) can be viewed as PC between a focal yucca and its internal pollinator offspring and as PFF between yucca flowers and pollinator offspring. Even though Sachs et al. and Weyl et al. respectively classify this cooperation as being stabilized by PC and PFF, my revised definition suggests that both are correct depending on entities under consideration.

Thus, to understand and potentially predict how persistent cooperation is, we will need to consider entities at all relevant levels. Between entities at given levels, we should be mindful that PC and PFF may independently promote cooperation (Figure 3D). At the same time, since PFF at lower levels (e.g. between yucca flowers and moth offspring) can appear as PC at higher levels (e.g. between a focal yucca and moth offspring) (Figure 3E), we should avoid double-counting.

PFF and PC in mitochondrion-eukaryote mutualistic cooperation

I will use the mutualistic cooperation between multicellular eukaryotes and mitochondria (Appendix note 20) as an example to illustrate PFF and PC at various levels. A cooperative mitochondrial genome (mtDNA) harbors genes that are necessary for the host eukaryote, but the transcription of these genes can slow down the replication of mtDNA itself because these two processes compete for the same protein factor(s) (Larsson et al., 1998). Thus, mtDNAs not performing host-serving functions can (Hofhaus and Gattermann, 1999; Taylor et al., 2002; Harrison et al., 2014; Jasmin and Zeyl, 2014) (Appendix note 21), though not always (Appendix note 22), gain an advantage in self-replication compared to normal mtDNAs. Here, I use 'dysfunctional mtDNAs' to describe mtDNAs that, compared to functional mtDNAs in the same 'heteroplasmic' mixture, can replicate themselves at least as well but generate less or no benefit for the host eukaryote. Dysfunctional mtDNAs can be devastating to the host eukaryote (Chinnery et al., 2000; Chan, 2006). In a heteroplasmic mixture of functional and dysfunctional mtDNAs (Fig 4A), what mechanisms oppose dysfunctional mtDNAs and their dysfunctional mitochondria? (Appendix note 23)

The importance of identifying PFF and PC at various levels becomes evident if we are interested in mitochondrial disease prognosis. Consider a human mother who is heteroplasmic for functional and dysfunctional mtDNAs/mitochondria (Chinnery et al., 2000). Since her children would only inherit mitochondria from her (Pyle et al., 2015), what would their disease prognosis be? Suppose that dysfunctional mtDNAs/mitochondria are purged from the human population solely because they harm the fitness of their host organisms (Appendix note 24) (i.e. via PFF between host organisms and mtDNAs/mitochondria, Figure 4B), as traditionally thought (Sachs et al., 2004; 2011). Then, offspring should on average suffer a similar or a severer fitness defect than their mother does, since dysfunctional mtDNAs/mitochondria accumulate and are not selected against in the mother. Fortunately, as I will discuss below, PFF and PC at sub-organismal levels create somatic and germline 'filters' against dysfunctional mtDNAs/mitochondria (Figure 4C–E), thus increasing the fitness of the mother and her offspring.

Figure 4

Download asset Open asset

PFF and PC act at multiple levels in the mutualistic cooperation between mitochondria and multicellular eukaryotes.

(A) An eukaryotic cell contains multiple mitochondria (dashed versus solid boundaries representing dysfunctional versus functional mitochondria). Each mitochondrion contains multiple mtDNAs (unfilled versus filled circles representing dysfunctional versus functional mtDNAs). (B) The mutualistic cooperation between mitochondria and eukaryotes is traditionally thought to be stabilized by PFF between eukaryotic host organisms and their mtDNAs/mitochondria. A host organism dominated by dysfunctional mtDNAs/mitochondria leaves fewer offspring (left) than a host organism dominated by functional mtDNAs/mitochondria (right). Due to mtDNA bottleneck, oocytes and offspring exhibit large variability in the level of dysfunctional mtDNAs/mitochondria they inherit from their mother. This facilitates PFF (see text). (C) Mitochondria dominated by functional mtDNAs replicate faster than those dominated by dysfunctional mtDNAs, even though dysfunctional mtDNAs replicate as fast as or faster than functional mtDNAs in the same mitochondrion. (D) PC between a focal cell and mitochondria/mtDNAs can occur through selective import, asymmetric segregation, or mitophagy. (E) Cells dominated by functional mtDNAs/mitochondria have a higher fitness than those dominated by dysfunctional mtDNAs/mitochondria. Grey crossbars: elimination; grey arrows: time.

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.10106.006

Starting from the lowest levels, selection against dysfunctional mtDNAs can occur via PFF between mitochondria and mtDNAs (Figure 4C) (see Appendix note 25). Dysfunctional mtDNAs can be selected against if they harm the reproduction of their host mitochondria. Indeed, during Drosophila melanogaster oogenesis (Hill et al., 2014; Ma et al., 2014), mitochondria dominated by functional mtDNAs proliferate faster than mitochondria dominated by dysfunctional mtDNAs (Figure 4C). This could occur if, for example, dysfunctional mtDNAs render their host mitochondria incapable of importing proteins required for mtDNA replication.

Moving one level up, PC can operate between a focal cell and mitochondria/mtDNAs when the cell preferentially imports, inherits, or retains functional mitochondria (Figure 4D). An example of PC can be found between an oocyte and spatially-equivalent nurse cell mitochondria during D. melanogaster oogenesis: To be transported into the developing oocyte, mitochondria from the surrounding nurse cells need to be localized to the cytoplasmic bridge connecting nurse cells to the oocyte, which in turn depends on mitochondrial function (Cox and Spradling, 2003; Hill et al., 2014) (Figure 4D, left). A second example can be found during cell division when the stem daughter cell or the young daughter cell preferentially inherits young (functional) mitochondria (McFaline-Figueroa et al., 2011; Katajisto et al., 2015), despite the spatial equivalence of mitochondria in the mother cell (Figure 4D, center). A third example of PC is a host cell using mitophagy, cellular digestion of mitochondria, to selectively eliminate dysfunctional mitochondria while retaining functional mitochondria (Kim and Lemasters, 2011; Ashrafi and Schwarz, 2013) (Figure 4D, right) (Appendix note 26). Mitophagy-mediated elimination of dysfunctional mtDNAs/mitochondria can conceivably operate in germ cells, given that mitophagy is active in fertilized oocytes to eliminate paternal mitochondria (Ashrafi and Schwarz, 2013). As discussed earlier (Figure 3E), PFF mechanisms at a lower level (i.e. between mitochondria and mtDNAs) may appear as PC mechanisms at a higher level (i.e. between a cell and mitochondria/mtDNAs). For example, slower net proliferation of dysfunctional mitochondria (Figure 4C) may or may not be linked to mitophagy (Figure 4D). An important future challenge is to address the orthogonality of various mechanisms.

For those dysfunctional mtDNAs/mitochondria that have escaped a cell’s PC capability, they can be further selected against via PFF between cells and mtDNAs/mitochondria (Figure 4E). For example, in at least several types of mammalian cells, certain mutations in mtDNA will lead host cells to undergo programmed cell death (apoptosis) (Zamzami et al., 1995; Chomyn and Attardi, 2003) or cell cycle arrest (Arnould et al., 2002; Owusu-Ansah et al., 2008). At least some of these PFF mechanisms can operate in germ cells. For example, in birds and mammals, the majority of oocytes die via apoptosis, which has been hypothesized as a mechanism to purge dysfunctional mtDNAs/mitochondria (Krakauer and Mira, 1999). Furthermore, oocytes harboring dysfunctional mtDNAs/mitochondria are less likely to be fertilized (Perez et al., 2000). Thus, dysfunctional mtDNAs/mitochondria can be selected against because they lower the fitness of their host cells.

Finally, when we move one level further up, dysfunctional mtDNAs/mitochondria that have survived PC and PFFs at lower levels (Figure 4C–E) can be selected against via PFF between host organisms and mtDNAs/mitochondria (Figure 4B).

A model based on the Price equation predicts that mtDNA bottleneck (inheriting a small number of mtDNAs per mitochondrion or per germ cell) should facilitate PFF at the corresponding level. Indeed, mtDNA bottleneck has been observed during fly and mammalian oogenesis (Koehler et al., 1991; Chinnery et al., 2000; Cree et al., 2008; Hill et al., 2014) (Appendix note 27). This mtDNA bottleneck means that oocytes from a mother heteroplasmic for functional and dysfunctional mtDNAs will exhibit high variability in the frequency of functional mtDNAs that they inherit. Oocytes dominated by dysfunctional mtDNAs can be subsequently purged via apoptosis (Appendix note 28), thus creating a germline mtDNA filter that improves the prognosis of offspring.

Conclusion

To reflect the hierarchical organization of biological systems, I introduce the concept of 'entity'. I have revised the definitions of PC and PFF so that they are orthogonal and so that they can operate on organismal or sub-organismal entities. PC requires that a focal cooperative entity can direct more benefits to cooperative over cheating partner entities despite their spatial equivalence. PFF suppresses cheaters that have escaped PC (if PC exists) via repeated interactions between entities in groups that, by chance, show high variability in cooperator frequency. By applying this revised definition, I show that sometimes, PFF at a lower level (e.g. between yucca flowers and moth offspring) may appear as PC at a higher level (between a yucca and moth offspring). PFF and PC can also act in conjunction at multiple levels to promote cooperation, as exemplified in the mitochondrion-eukaryote cooperation. This framework brings conceptual clarity for understanding the persistence of cooperation.

Appendix

Note 1

Interactions between individuals are instances where an individual changes the physiology of another individual. Interactions can be mediated through, for example, diffusible chemicals (e.g. metabolites, antibiotics) or physical binding.

Note 2

Excreting waste byproducts that happen to be useful to other species is not considered cooperation. Even though waste excretion may involve an energetic cost, not excreting waste is even more costly. Thus, waste excretion results in a net fitness benefit instead of a net fitness cost to the excretor.

Note 3

Preys provide a costly benefit to predators. However, we do not consider preys to cooperate with predators when predators never reciprocate any benefit (e.g. helping preys to reproduce).

Note 4

Kin cooperation can be homotypic (Figure 1A) or heterotypic (e.g. division of labor in an ant colony). Although mutualistic cooperation is generally heterotypic (Figure 1B), it can be homotypic (e.g. different species all decompose cellulose to usable glucose which is shared by all).

Note 5

Although cheaters invest less than cooperators in producing costly benefits, cheaters are not necessarily more fit than cooperators. First, cooperators and cheaters can accumulate different mutations while adapting to their abiotic environment, making it possible for cooperators to sometimes outcompete cheaters (Morgan et al., 2012; Waite and Shou, 2012; Asfahl et al., 2015). Second, self-interest and the ability to cooperate can be genetically linked (Foster et al., 2004; Dandekar et al., 2012). For example in Dictyostelium discoideum, dimA couples the ability to cooperate (forming non-reproductive stalk) with self-interest (forming reproductive spores). Finally, the fitness difference between cheaters and cooperators can depend on the environment. For example, cooperative but not cheating yeast cells pay a cost to express cell-surface invertase which converts extracellular sucrose to usable monosaccharides. Rare cooperators are more fit than abundant cheaters. This is because a cooperator can privatize a very small amount of monosaccharides generated by its cell-surface invertase, and this benefit already exceeds the cost of cooperation when monosaccharides are scarce (Gore et al., 2009). On the other hand, rare cheaters are more fit than abundant cooperators. This is because abundant cooperators generate high levels of monosaccharides, and the privatization of monosaccharides by cooperators leads to only a negligible further increase in growth rate which can no longer offset the cost of invertase production (Gore et al., 2009). This frequency-dependent selection leads to the coexistence of cooperators and cheaters.

Note 6

A group can have a well-defined boundary (e.g. cell membrane where the group comprises the cell and its internal endosymbionts), or not (e.g. microbes interacting with nearby neighbors in soil). Even though a group generally contains multiple individuals, a group can also contain a single individual.

Note 7

Although Sachs et al. differentiated 'partner fidelity feedback' and 'partner choice' from 'kin fidelity' and 'kin choice', I have consolidated them to 'partner fidelity feedback' and 'partner choice' since partners can belong to different species, or genetically unrelated individuals of the same species, or genetic relatives. One potential difference between homotypic kin cooperation and heterotypic mutualistic cooperation is that in kin cooperation, a focal individual can directly benefit from its own cooperative act (e.g. obtaining siderophores-Fe³⁺ after releasing siderophores to scavenge environmental Fe³⁺, Figure 1A). Such 'direct benefit' may be absent in mutualistic cooperation (e.g. plants making nectar solely for pollinators). However, direct benefit from cooperating with self may be considered as part of 'basal fitness' (the fitness of an individual when alone).

Note 8

Too drastic a population bottleneck may destroy cooperation, because a critical density of cooperators is often required for effective reciprocation (Shou et al., 2007; Koschwanez et al., 2011).

Note 9

Sachs et al. classified mechanisms such as 'sanctioning/policing' (punishing cheaters) and 'indirect reciprocity' (helping a partner who has helped others) under PC. The 'green-beard' mechanism, where an allele produces a perceptible trait which allows the recognition of and preferential treatment to those bearing the same trait, belongs to PC. For example, adhesive cells preferentially bind to other adhesive cells (Figure 1C,iii); cells harboring a toxin-antitoxin plasmid only kill cells without the plasmid (Figure 3D). Sachs et al. further noted that both PC and PFF can contribute to 'direct reciprocity' (helping a partner who has helped the individual itself) and 'kin selection' (helping genetic relatives even at a cost to self). Fletcher and Doebeli have also tried to unify all pro-cooperation mechanisms under 'positive assortment' where cooperators mostly receive cooperative acts from their interaction environment (Fletcher and Doebeli, 2009). However, this still leaves open the question what mechanisms can create positive assortment (Fletcher and Doebeli, 2009).

Note 10

Another alternative criterion has been proposed to me: if and only if a mechanism (e.g. flower abortion) has evolved to exclude cheaters would it be considered PC. In reality, ascertaining why a mechanism has evolved is difficult unless the selective pressure is understood and the evolutionary history is available (e.g. experimental evolution). Thus, I do not favor this definition, since a definition should be 'physical as contrasted with psychological' and should strive to exclude 'psychological factors of preferences and decision making' (Price, 1995).

Note 11

This definition requires that multiple entities exist. Thus, the entire earth ecosystem would not be considered an entity. However, this requirement should in general be easily satisfied.

Note 12

Even though the birth of a tree depends on the birth of its parents, these birth events are temporally separable.

Note 13

The contents of an entity can change. For example, in an entity comprising a yucca plant and its internal moth larvae, newly opened flowers receive new moth offspring as mature larvae exit.

Note 14

Unlike concepts such as 'Darwinian individuals' (Lewontin, 1970), entities do not have to show heritable phenotypic variations that result in differential fitness. For example, flowers on the same yucca share the same genotype, and the death of a flower is not due to its genotype but to its pollinators’.

Note 15

Cooperative and cheating partner entities may or may not be simultaneously present. For example, a focal cooperative entity can withhold interactions until it encounters a cooperative partner entity. PC operates as long as the focal individual would have favored cooperative over spatially-equivalent cheating partner entities should they be simultaneously present.

Note 16

Consider the engineered yeast community (Figure 3A). Initially, the two partner populations [L− A+] and [L−] are spatially equivalent to the focal population [A− L+] due to their random spatial distributions. The preferential mixing of [A− L+] with [L− A+] instead of [L−] is driven by PFF not PC.

Note 17

For example, PC may require a spatially-structured environment: Suppose that an imaginary [A− L+] cell could chemotax up an adenine gradient to interact with [L− A+] instead of [L−] despite their spatial equivalency. This PC would rely on adenine gradient whose formation requires a spatially-structured environment (Figure 3C). Additionally, the imaginary chemotactic [A− L+] cell would not be able to distinguish cooperative versus cheating partner cells in a clump.

Note 18

To establish a mathematical model, one would quantify in monocultures of cooperators and cheaters their rates of birth, non-suicidal death, and suicidal death under favorable (low cell density) and unfavorable (high cell density) environments. One would also quantify the amount of toxin released by dying cooperator, and how toxin at various concentrations increase the death rate of cheaters. If in addition to reducing competition, cell death supplies metabolites to increase the survival of living cells, then these metabolites may need to be quantified as well. In a spatially-structured environment (PFF), one would also quantify the diffusion of toxins and metabolites. Such a model can be used to predict the dynamics of cooperator frequency.

Note 19

To see how this works, imagine a yucca where flowers are not spatially separated. In this imaginary yucca with only one flower, depending on whether the one flower is retained or aborted, cooperative pollinators will be less fit than or as unfit as cheating pollinators, respectively.

Note 20

Eukaryotic cells and their intracellular mitochondria interact in mutualistic manners (McBride et al., 2006). For example, mitochondria generate ATP via the TCA cycle and oxidative phosphorylation, carry out steps in the synthesis of several amino acids (Ljungdahl and Daignan-Fornier, 2012) and cofactors, and facilitate the maturation of essential cellular Fe-S proteins (Lill and Kispal, 2000). In multicellular organisms, mitochondria also serve as the site for apoptotic signaling and anti-viral signaling (McBride et al., 2006). Conversely, mitochondria rely on the host cell for survival, as evidenced by their highly reduced genomes and the ongoing transfer of DNA from mitochondria to the nucleus (Ricchetti et al., 1999; Timmis et al., 2004). On the flip side, mitochondria produce reactive oxygen species (ROS) which cause high mutation rate especially in mitochondrial genomes (mtDNAs), creating dysfunctional mtDNAs. ROS also cause cellular damage and organismal ageing (Chomyn and Attardi, 2003).

Note 21

For example a cheating mtDNA in S. cerevisiae has replaced its genes with many copies of a DNA fragment containing the origin of replication, and is competitively superior to normal mtDNAs. This cheating mtDNA is defective in mitochondrial functions, and is deleterious to the host cell (Blanc and Dujon, 1980; Taylor et al., 2002; Poole et al., 2012). As another example, in the aged human substantia nigra, the primary site of neurodegeneration in Parkinson disease, individual pigmented neurons often contain very high levels of clonally-expanded mutant mtDNAs containing various deletions (Kraytsberg et al., 2006; Bender et al., 2006). Because a neuron rarely undergoes mitosis, this age-dependent clonal expansion of a mutant mtDNA presumably occurs during the regular turnover of mitochondria and mtDNAs (Menzies and Gold, 1971) over the life time of a neuron, and likely reflects the fitness advantage of mutant over normal mtDNA.

Note 22

For example in S. cerevisiae and female mammals, mutant and normal mtDNAs in a 'heteroplasmic' mixture can be transmitted to the next generation without any bias, depending on the mutation type (Chinnery et al., 2000; Taylor et al., 2002; Freyer et al., 2012).

Note 23

Even though functional mtDNAs and functional mitochondria may not strictly correspond (e.g. mitochondria with functional mtDNAs may appear dysfunctional due to compromised vacuolar acidity [Hughes and Gottschling, 2012], and mitochondria with low levels of dysfunctional mtDNAs can still be functional), this correspondence largely holds.

Note 24

For example in S. cerevisiae, cells with normal mtDNAs grow significantly faster than cells with dysfunctional mtDNAs, thus rendering dysfunctional mtDNAs/mitochondria less competitive (Taylor et al., 2002). In flies and mammals, an organism can even die at a young age if certain types of dysfunctional mtDNA reach sufficiently high levels (Wallace, 1999; Hill et al., 2014).

Note 25

An eukaryotic cell generally contains a population of mitochondria, and each mitochondrion on average contains multiple mtDNAs (Figure 4A) (Satoh and Kuroiwa, 1991). Mitochondria undergo dynamic fusion and fission which mix organelle contents including mtDNAs (Chan, 2006). Thus inside a cell, a scenario similar to that modeled in the Price equation (Figure 2) occurs: mtDNAs are divided into spatially-separated mitochondria that interact through fusion (group dissolution) and fission (group formation). mtDNAs can cooperate with their host mitochondrion by, for example, generating the membrane potential required for resource import into mitochondrion, or cheat by not performing these tasks (Clayton, 1992). A model based on the Price equation predicts that frequent fusion will homogenize mtDNAs across mitochondria, and thus allow competitively-superior cheating mtDNAs to rise to high frequency even if fusion temporarily allows functional mitochondria to complement dysfunctional mitochondria. Too little fusion or fission is also predicted to disfavor cooperative mtDNAs, because in isolated groups, cheating mtDNAs will eventually arise from cooperative mtDNAs via mutations and outcompete cooperative mtDNAs.

Note 26

For example, in mammalian tissue culture cells, compromised membrane potential of a mitochondrion causes PINK1 to be stabilized on mitochondrial membrane instead of being imported and rapidly degraded (Jin et al., 2010). Stabilized PINK1 degrades proteins required for mitochondrial fusion, and a blockage in mitochondrial fusion (Lazarou et al., 2012) attracts the mitophagy apparatus (Narendra et al., 2008; Twig et al., 2008).

Note 27

For example, a mature mouse oocyte harbors mtDNAs on the order of 10⁵. The lack of new mtDNA synthesis and binary cell divisions cause a reduction in mtDNA to ~4000/cell before implantation (Cree et al., 2008). mtDNA copy number is further reduced to as low as 30, with a median of ~200, in primordial germ cells which eventually undergo meiosis and develop into oocytes or sperms (Cree et al., 2008).

Note 28

Strikingly, species where individuals give birth to fewer offspring tend to experience severer mtDNA bottleneck as well as apoptosis in a larger fraction of oocytes (Krakauer and Mira, 1999). This is consistent with the idea that if the number of offspring per individual is small, then selection for functional mtDNA in germ cells becomes critical (Krakauer and Mira, 1999).

References

(2011a) Economic game theory for mutualism and cooperation
Ecology Letters 14:1300–1312.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2011.01697.x
- Google Scholar
1. Archetti M
2. Úbeda F
3. Fudenberg D
4. Green J
5. Pierce NE
6. Yu DW
(2011b) Let the right one in: a microeconomic approach to partner choice in mutualisms
The American Naturalist 177:75–85.

https://doi.org/10.1086/657622
- Google Scholar
1. Arnould T
2. Vankoningsloo S
3. Renard P
4. Houbion A
5. Ninane N
6. Demazy C
7. Remacle J
8. Raes M
(2002) CREB activation induced by mitochondrial dysfunction is a new signaling pathway that impairs cell proliferation
The EMBO Journal 21:53–63.

https://doi.org/10.1093/emboj/21.1.53
- Google Scholar
(2015) Non-social adaptation defers a tragedy of the commons in pseudomonas aeruginosa quorum sensing
The ISME Journal 9:1734–1746.

https://doi.org/10.1038/ismej.2014.259
- Google Scholar
1. Ashrafi G
2. Schwarz TL
(2013) The pathways of mitophagy for quality control and clearance of mitochondria
Cell Death and Differentiation 20:31–42.

https://doi.org/10.1038/cdd.2012.81
- Google Scholar
1. Axelrod R
2. Hamilton W
(1981) The evolution of cooperation
Science 211:1390–1396.

https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7466396
- Google Scholar
1. Bender A
2. Krishnan KJ
3. Morris CM
4. Taylor GA
5. Reeve AK
6. Perry RH
7. Jaros E
8. Hersheson JS
9. Betts J
10. Klopstock T
11. Taylor RW
12. Turnbull DM
(2006) High levels of mitochondrial DNA deletions in substantia nigra neurons in aging and parkinson disease
Nature Genetics 38:515–517.

https://doi.org/10.1038/ng1769
- Google Scholar
1. Blanc H
2. Dujon B
(1980) Replicator regions of the yeast mitochondrial DNA responsible for suppressiveness
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 77:3942–3946.

https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.77.7.3942
- Google Scholar
1. Brockhurst MA
2. Svensson E
(2007) Population bottlenecks promote cooperation in bacterial biofilms
PLoS ONE 2:e634.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0000634
- Google Scholar
1. Bshary R
2. Grutter AS
(2006) Image scoring and cooperation in a cleaner fish mutualism
Nature 441:975–978.

https://doi.org/10.1038/nature04755
- Google Scholar
1. Bshary R
2. Schäffer D
(2002) Choosy reef fish select cleaner fish that provide high-quality service
Animal Behaviour 63:557–564.

https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.2001.1923
- Google Scholar
1. Bull JJ
2. Rice WR
(1991) Distinguishing mechanisms for the evolution of cooperation
Journal of Theoretical Biology 149:63–74.

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5193(05)80072-4
- Google Scholar
1. Chan DC
(2006) Mitochondria: dynamic organelles in disease, aging, and development
Cell 125:1241–1252.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2006.06.010
- Google Scholar
1. Chao L
2. Levin BR
(1981) Structured habitats and the evolution of anticompetitor toxins in bacteria
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 78:6324–6328.

https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.78.10.6324
- Google Scholar
(2000) The inheritance of mitochondrial DNA heteroplasmy: random drift, selection or both?
Trends in Genetics 16:500–505.

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-9525(00)02120-X
- Google Scholar
1. Chomyn A
2. Attardi G
(2003) MtDNA mutations in aging and apoptosis
Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications 304:519–529.

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-291X(03)00625-9
- Google Scholar
(2009) Simpson's paradox in a synthetic microbial system
Science 323:272–275.

https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1166739
- Google Scholar
1. Clayton DA
(1992) Transcription and replication of animal mitochondrial DNAs
International Review of Cytology 141:217–232.

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0074-7696(08)62067-7
- Google Scholar
(2014) Tumour cell heterogeneity maintained by cooperating subclones in wnt-driven mammary cancers
Nature 508:113–117.

https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13187
- Google Scholar
1. Cox RT
2. Spradling AC
(2003) A balbiani body and the fusome mediate mitochondrial inheritance during drosophila oogenesis
Development 130:1579–1590.

https://doi.org/10.1242/dev.00365
- Google Scholar
(2008) A reduction of mitochondrial DNA molecules during embryogenesis explains the rapid segregation of genotypes
Nature Genetics 40:249–254.

https://doi.org/10.1038/ng.2007.63
- Google Scholar
(2012) Bacterial quorum sensing and metabolic incentives to cooperate
Science 338:264–266.

https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1227289
- Google Scholar
1. Datta MS
2. Korolev KS
3. Cvijovic I
4. Dudley C
5. Gore J
(2013) Range expansion promotes cooperation in an experimental microbial metapopulation
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110:7354–7359.

https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1217517110
- Google Scholar
1. Falsetta ML
2. Klein MI
3. Colonne PM
4. Scott-Anne K
5. Gregoire S
6. Pai C-H
7. Gonzalez-Begne M
8. Watson G
9. Krysan DJ
10. Bowen WH
11. Koo H
(2014) Symbiotic relationship between streptococcus mutans and candida albicans synergizes virulence of plaque biofilms in vivo
Infection and Immunity 82:1968–1981.

https://doi.org/10.1128/IAI.00087-14
- Google Scholar
1. Fletcher JA
2. Doebeli M
(2009) A simple and general explanation for the evolution of altruism
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 276:13–19.

https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2008.0829
- Google Scholar
(2004) Pleiotropy as a mechanism to stabilize cooperation
Nature 431:693–696.

https://doi.org/10.1038/nature02894
- Google Scholar
1. Foster KR
2. Wenseleers T
(2006) A general model for the evolution of mutualisms
Journal of Evolutionary Biology 19:1283–1293.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1420-9101.2005.01073.x
- Google Scholar
1. Frank SA
(1994) Genetics of mutualism: the evolution of altruism between species
Journal of Theoretical Biology 170:393–400.

https://doi.org/10.1006/jtbi.1994.1200
- Google Scholar
1. Frank SA
(1997) The Price equation, Fisher's fundamental theorem, kin selection, and causal analysis
Evolution 51:1712–1729.

https://doi.org/10.2307/2410995
- Google Scholar
1. Frederickson ME
(2013) Rethinking mutualism stability: cheaters and the evolution of sanctions
The Quarterly Review of Biology 88:269–295.

https://doi.org/10.1086/673757
- Google Scholar
1. Freyer C
2. Cree LM
3. Mourier A
4. Stewart JB
5. Koolmeister C
6. Milenkovic D
7. Wai T
8. Floros VI
9. Hagström E
10. Chatzidaki EE
11. Wiesner RJ
12. Samuels DC
13. Larsson N-G
14. Chinnery PF
(2012) Variation in germline mtDNA heteroplasmy is determined prenatally but modified during subsequent transmission
Nature Genetics 44:1282–1285.

https://doi.org/10.1038/ng.2427
- Google Scholar
(2009) Snowdrift game dynamics and facultative cheating in yeast
Nature 459:253–256.

https://doi.org/10.1038/nature07921
- Google Scholar
(2004) Cooperation and competition in pathogenic bacteria
Nature 430:1024–1027.

https://doi.org/10.1038/nature02744
- Google Scholar
(2007) Genetic drift at expanding frontiers promotes gene segregation
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 104:19926–19930.

https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0710150104
- Google Scholar
1. Hamilton WD
(1964a) The genetical evolution of social behaviour. I
Journal of Theoretical Biology 7:1–16.

https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-5193(64)90038-4
- Google Scholar
1. Hamilton WD
(1964b) The genetical evolution of social behaviour. II
Journal of Theoretical Biology 7:17–52.

https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-5193(64)90039-6
- Google Scholar
1. Harcombe W
(2010) Novel cooperation experimentally evolved between species
Evolution 64:2166–2238.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1558-5646.2010.00959.x
- Google Scholar
(2014) Sex drives intracellular conflict in yeast
Journal of Evolutionary Biology 27:1757–1763.

https://doi.org/10.1111/jeb.12408
- Google Scholar
1. Hilbe C
2. Wu B
3. Traulsen A
4. Nowak MA
(2014) Cooperation and control in multiplayer social dilemmas
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 111:16425–16430.

https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1407887111
- Google Scholar
1. Hill JH
2. Chen Z
3. Xu H
(2014) Selective propagation of functional mitochondrial DNA during oogenesis restricts the transmission of a deleterious mitochondrial variant
Nature Genetics 46:389–392.

https://doi.org/10.1038/ng.2920
- Google Scholar
1. Hofhaus G
2. Gattermann N
(1999) Mitochondria harbouring mutant mtDNA a cuckoo in the nest?
Biological Chemistry 380:871–877.

https://doi.org/10.1515/BC.1999.107
- Google Scholar
1. Hughes AL
2. Gottschling DE
(2012) An early age increase in vacuolar pH limits mitochondrial function and lifespan in yeast
Nature 492:261–265.

https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11654
- Google Scholar
1. Jander KC
2. Herre EA
(2010) Host sanctions and pollinator cheating in the fig tree-fig wasp mutualism
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 277:1481–1488.

https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2009.2157
- Google Scholar
1. Jasmin J-N
2. Zeyl C
(2014) Rapid evolution of cheating mitochondrial genomes in small yeast populations
Evolution 68:269–275.

https://doi.org/10.1111/evo.12228
- Google Scholar
1. Jin SM
2. Lazarou M
3. Wang C
4. Kane LA
5. Narendra DP
6. Youle RJ
(2010) Mitochondrial membrane potential regulates PINK1 import and proteolytic destabilization by PARL
The Journal of Cell Biology 191:933–942.

https://doi.org/10.1083/jcb.201008084
- Google Scholar
1. Katajisto P
2. Dohla J
3. Chaffer CL
4. Pentinmikko N
5. Marjanovic N
6. Iqbal S
7. Zoncu R
8. Chen W
9. Weinberg RA
10. Sabatini DM
(2015) Asymmetric apportioning of aged mitochondria between daughter cells is required for stemness
Science 348:340–343.

https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1260384
- Google Scholar
(2011) The biological reality of host sanctions and partner fidelity
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108:E7.

https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1014546108
- Google Scholar
(2003) Host sanctions and the legume–rhizobium mutualism
Nature 425:78–81.

https://doi.org/10.1038/nature01931
- Google Scholar
1. Kim I
2. Lemasters JJ
(2011) Mitophagy selectively degrades individual damaged mitochondria after photoirradiation
Antioxidants & Redox Signaling 14:1919–1928.

https://doi.org/10.1089/ars.2010.3768
- Google Scholar
1. Koehler CM
2. Lindberg GL
3. Brown DR
4. Beitz DC
5. Freeman AE
6. Mayfield JE
7. Myers AM
(1991)
Replacement of bovine mitochondrial DNA by a sequence variant within one generation

Genetics 129:247–255.
- Google Scholar
(2011) Sucrose utilization in budding yeast as a model for the origin of undifferentiated multicellularity
PLoS Biology 9:e1001122.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001122
- Google Scholar
1. Krakauer DC
2. Mira A
(1999) Mitochondria and germ-cell death
Nature 400:125–126.

https://doi.org/10.1038/22026
- Google Scholar
(2006) Mitochondrial DNA deletions are abundant and cause functional impairment in aged human substantia nigra neurons
Nature Genetics 38:518–520.

https://doi.org/10.1038/ng1778
- Google Scholar
1. Larsson N-G
2. Wang J
3. Wilhelmsson H
4. Oldfors A
5. Rustin P
6. Lewandoski M
7. Barsh GS
8. Clayton DA
(1998) Mitochondrial transcription factor a is necessary for mtDNA maintance and embryogenesis in mice
Nature Genetics 18:231–236.

https://doi.org/10.1038/ng0398-231
- Google Scholar
1. Lazarou M
2. Jin SM
3. Kane LA
4. Youle RJ
(2012) Role of PINK1 binding to the TOM complex and alternate intracellular membranes in recruitment and activation of the E3 ligase parkin
Developmental Cell 22:320–333.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.devcel.2011.12.014
- Google Scholar
1. Lehmann L
2. Keller L
(2006) The evolution of cooperation and altruism – a general framework and a classification of models
Journal of Evolutionary Biology 19:1365–1376.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1420-9101.2006.01119.x
- Google Scholar
1. Lewontin RC
(1970) The units of selection
Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 1:1–18.

https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.es.01.110170.000245
- Google Scholar
1. Lill R
2. Kispal G
(2000) Maturation of cellular Fe–S proteins: an essential function of mitochondria
Trends in Biochemical Sciences 25:352–356.

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0968-0004(00)01589-9
- Google Scholar
1. Ljungdahl PO
2. Daignan-Fornier B
(2012) Regulation of amino acid, nucleotide, and phosphate metabolism in Saccharomyces cerevisiae
Genetics 190:885–929.

https://doi.org/10.1534/genetics.111.133306
- Google Scholar
1. Ma H
2. Xu H
3. O'Farrell PH
(2014) Transmission of mitochondrial mutations and action of purifying selection in drosophila melanogaster
Nature Genetics 46:393–397.

https://doi.org/10.1038/ng.2919
- Google Scholar
Book
1. Maynard Smith J
2. Szathmary E
(1998)
The Major Transitions in Evolution

USA: Oxford University Press.
- Google Scholar
(2006) Mitochondria: more than just a powerhouse
Current Biology 16:R551–R560.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2006.06.054
- Google Scholar
1. McFaline-Figueroa JR
2. Vevea J
3. Swayne TC
4. Zhou C
5. Liu C
6. Leung G
7. Boldogh IR
8. Pon LA
(2011) Mitochondrial quality control during inheritance is associated with lifespan and mother-daughter age asymmetry in budding yeast
Aging Cell 10:885–895.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1474-9726.2011.00731.x
- Google Scholar
1. Menzies RA
2. Gold PH
(1971)
The turnover of mitochondria in a variety of tissues of young adult and aged rats

The Journal of Biological Chemistry 246:2425–2429.
- Google Scholar
(2015) Resource limitation drives spatial organization in microbial groups
The ISME Journal.

https://doi.org/10.1038/ismej.2015.208
- Google Scholar
1. Momeni B
2. Waite AJ
3. Shou W
(2013) Spatial self-organization favors heterotypic cooperation over cheating
eLife 2:e00960.

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.00960
- Google Scholar
(2012) Selection on non-social traits limits the invasion of social cheats
Ecology Letters 15:841–846.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2012.01805.x
- Google Scholar
(2010) Emergence of Spatial Structure in Cell Groups and the Evolution of Cooperation
PLoS Computational Biology 6:e1000716.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000716
- Google Scholar
1. Narendra D
2. Tanaka A
3. Suen D-F
4. Youle RJ
(2008) Parkin is recruited selectively to impaired mitochondria and promotes their autophagy
The Journal of Cell Biology 183:795–803.

https://doi.org/10.1083/jcb.200809125
- Google Scholar
1. Nowak MA
(2006) Five rules for the evolution of cooperation
Science 314:1560–1563.

https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1133755
- Google Scholar
(2008) Distinct mitochondrial retrograde signals control the G1-s cell cycle checkpoint
Nature Genetics 40:356–361.

https://doi.org/10.1038/ng.2007.50
- Google Scholar
1. Pellmyr O
2. Huth CJ
(1994) Evolutionary stability of mutualism between yuccas and yucca moths
Nature 372:257–260.

https://doi.org/10.1038/372257a0
- Google Scholar
(2000) Reproductive biology: mitochondria and the death of oocytes
Nature 403:500–501.

https://doi.org/10.1038/35000651
- Google Scholar
(2012) A positive role for yeast extrachromosomal rDNA circles?
BioEssays 34:725–729.

https://doi.org/10.1002/bies.201200037
- Google Scholar
1. Price GR
(1970) Selection and covariance
Nature 227:520–521.

https://doi.org/10.1038/227520a0
- Google Scholar
1. Price GR
(1995) The nature of selection
Journal of Theoretical Biology 175:389–396.

https://doi.org/10.1006/jtbi.1995.0149
- Google Scholar
(2015) Extreme-depth re-sequencing of mitochondrial DNA finds no evidence of paternal transmission in humans
PLOS Genetics 11:e1005040.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1005040
- Google Scholar
(2012) Lactate is a mediator of metabolic cooperation between stromal carcinoma associated fibroblasts and glycolytic tumor cells in the tumor microenvironment
Experimental Cell Research 318:326–335.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yexcr.2011.11.014
- Google Scholar
(1999) Mitochondrial DNA repairs double-strand breaks in yeast chromosomes
Nature 402:96–100.

https://doi.org/10.1038/47076
- Google Scholar
1. Sachs JL
2. Mueller UG
3. Wilcox TP
4. Bull JJ
(2004) The evolution of cooperation
The Quarterly Review of Biology 79:135–160.

https://doi.org/10.1086/383541
- Google Scholar
(2011) Evolutionary transitions in bacterial symbiosis
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 108:10800–10807.

https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1100304108
- Google Scholar
(2007) Social cheating in Pseudomonas aeruginosa quorum sensing
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 104:15876–15881.

https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0705653104
- Google Scholar
1. Satoh M
2. Kuroiwa T
(1991) Organization of multiple nucleoids and DNA molecules in mitochondria of a human cell
Experimental Cell Research 196:137–140.

https://doi.org/10.1016/0014-4827(91)90467-9
- Google Scholar
1. Shou W
2. Ram S
3. Vilar JMG
(2007) Synthetic cooperation in engineered yeast populations
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 104:1877–1882.

https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0610575104
- Google Scholar
1. Smukalla S
2. Caldara M
3. Pochet N
4. Beauvais A
5. Guadagnini S
6. Yan C
7. Vinces MD
8. Jansen A
9. Prevost MC
10. Latgé J-P
11. Fink GR
12. Foster KR
13. Verstrepen KJ
(2008) FLO1 is a variable green beard gene that drives biofilm-like cooperation in budding yeast
Cell 135:726–737.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2008.09.037
- Google Scholar
1. Taylor DR
2. Zeyl C
3. Cooke E
(2002) Conflicting levels of selection in the accumulation of mitochondrial defects in Saccharomyces cerevisiae
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 99:3690–3694.

https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.072660299
- Google Scholar
(2004) Endosymbiotic gene transfer: organelle genomes forge eukaryotic chromosomes
Nature Reviews Genetics 5:123–135.

https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg1271
- Google Scholar
1. Trivers RL
(1971) The evolution of reciprocal altruism
The Quarterly Review of Biology 46:35–57.

https://doi.org/10.1086/406755
- Google Scholar
1. Twig G
2. Elorza A
3. Molina AJA
4. Mohamed H
5. Wikstrom JD
6. Walzer G
7. Stiles L
8. Haigh SE
9. Katz S
10. Las G
11. Alroy J
12. Wu M
13. Py BF
14. Yuan J
15. Deeney JT
16. Corkey BE
17. Shirihai OS
(2008) Fission and selective fusion govern mitochondrial segregation and elimination by autophagy
The EMBO Journal 27:433–446.

https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.emboj.7601963
- Google Scholar
(2013) Spatial population expansion promotes the evolution of cooperation in an experimental Prisoner’s Dilemma
Current Biology 23:919–923.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2013.04.026
- Google Scholar
(2014) Density of founder cells affects spatial pattern formation and cooperation in Bacillus subtilis biofilms
The ISME Journal 8:2069–2079.

https://doi.org/10.1038/ismej.2014.52
- Google Scholar
(2015) Defectors can create conditions that rescue cooperation
PLOS Computational Biology 11:e1004645.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004645
- Google Scholar
1. Waite AJ
2. Shou W
(2012) Adaptation to a new environment allows cooperators to purge cheaters stochastically
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 109:19079–19086.

https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1210190109
- Google Scholar
1. Wallace DC
(1999) Mitochondrial diseases in man and mouse
Science 283:1482–1488.

https://doi.org/10.1126/science.283.5407.1482
- Google Scholar
(2006) Social evolution theory for microorganisms
Nature Reviews Microbiology 4:597–607.

https://doi.org/10.1038/nrmicro1461
- Google Scholar
(2007) Evolutionary explanations for cooperation
Current Biology 17:R661–R672.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2007.06.004
- Google Scholar
(2010) Economic contract theory tests models of mutualism
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 107:15712–15716.

https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1005294107
- Google Scholar
(2011) Reply to Kiers et al.: Economic and biological clarity in the theory of mutualism
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108:E8.

https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1015734108
- Google Scholar
1. Zamzami N
2. Marchetti P
3. Castedo M
4. Decaudin D
5. Macho A
6. Hirsch T
7. Susin SA
8. Petit PX
9. Mignotte B
10. Kroemer G
(1995) Sequential reduction of mitochondrial transmembrane potential and generation of reactive oxygen species in early programmed cell death
Journal of Experimental Medicine 182:367–377.

https://doi.org/10.1084/jem.182.2.367
- Google Scholar
1. Zhou J
2. Ma Q
3. Yi H
4. Wang L
5. Song H
6. Yuan Y-J
(2011) Metabolome profiling reveals metabolic cooperation between Bacillus megaterium and Ketogulonicigenium vulgare during induced swarm motility
Applied and Environmental Microbiology 77:7023–7030.

https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.05123-11
- Google Scholar

Article and author information

Author details

Wenying Shou

Division of Basic Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, United States

Contribution
WS, Conception and design, Analysis and interpretation of data, Drafting or revising the article

For correspondence
wenying.shou@gmail.com

Competing interests
WS: Reviewing editor, eLife.

Funding

W.M. Keck Foundation (Distinguished Young Scholars Program)

Wenying Shou

NIH Office of the Director (NIH Director's New Innovator Award DP2 OD006498-01)

Wenying Shou

Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center (New Development)

Wenying Shou

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to the chance events that have induced this work. In 2013, Diethard Tautz kindly invited me to the EMBO EMBL Symposium 'New Model Systems for Linking Evolution and Ecology'. After my talk, Andrew Moore from BioEssays invited me to write about the evolution of cooperation. I decided to tackle the controversy raised by the very interesting Weyl et al. paper. I initially defined PC as being 'active' in the genetic sense (e.g. flower abortion is PC if a mutation can prevent such abortion). Reviewers were (rightly) not happy with this definition. The verdict was that I should write a review instead, a task that I was not too enthusiastic about given the many existing reviews. To better understand PC versus PFF, I subsequently went through many versions of ideas. During this time, Babak Momeni tirelessly served as my intellectual sounding-board. I thank my colleagues (Maxine Linial, Karen Craig, Chichun Chen, Robin Green, Björn Kafsack, Ben Kerr, Will Harcombe, and Suzannah Rutherford) and participants of the 2015 Microbial Population Biology Gordon Research Conference (Genya Frenkel, Wolfram Möbius, and Kevin Foster) for discussions and to Ben Kerr for Figure 2. Finally, I thank all reviewers (Jim Bull, Luke McNally, Diethard Tautz, Douglas Yu, and anonymous) for constructive criticisms. I dedicate this work to my alma mater Pomona College, Claremont, California, United States.

Copyright

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.