Literature DB >> 20843843

Selective pressures for accurate altruism targeting: evidence from digital evolution for difficult-to-test aspects of inclusive fitness theory.

Jeff Clune1, Heather J Goldsby, Charles Ofria, Robert T Pennock.   

Abstract

Inclusive fitness theory predicts that natural selection will favour altruist genes that are more accurate in targeting altruism only to copies of themselves. In this paper, we provide evidence from digital evolution in support of this prediction by competing multiple altruist-targeting mechanisms that vary in their accuracy in determining whether a potential target for altruism carries a copy of the altruist gene. We compete altruism-targeting mechanisms based on (i) kinship (kin targeting), (ii) genetic similarity at a level greater than that expected of kin (similarity targeting), and (iii) perfect knowledge of the presence of an altruist gene (green beard targeting). Natural selection always favoured the most accurate targeting mechanism available. Our investigations also revealed that evolution did not increase the altruism level when all green beard altruists used the same phenotypic marker. The green beard altruism levels stably increased only when mutations that changed the altruism level also changed the marker (e.g. beard colour), such that beard colour reliably indicated the altruism level. For kin- and similarity-targeting mechanisms, we found that evolution was able to stably adjust altruism levels. Our results confirm that natural selection favours altruist genes that are increasingly accurate in targeting altruism to only their copies. Our work also emphasizes that the concept of targeting accuracy must include both the presence of an altruist gene and the level of altruism it produces.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20843843      PMCID: PMC3030848          DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2010.1557

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Proc Biol Sci        ISSN: 0962-8452            Impact factor:   5.349


  25 in total

1.  Evolution of biological complexity.

Authors:  C Adami; C Ofria; T C Collier
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2000-04-25       Impact factor: 11.205

2.  Evolution of digital organisms at high mutation rates leads to survival of the flattest.

Authors:  C O Wilke; J L Wang; C Ofria; R E Lenski; C Adami
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2001-07-19       Impact factor: 49.962

3.  Kin discrimination and altruism in the larvae of a solitary insect.

Authors:  Anne Lizé; Dominique Carval; Anne Marie Cortesero; Sylvain Fournet; Denis Poinsot
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2006-09-22       Impact factor: 5.349

Review 4.  Evolutionary explanations for cooperation.

Authors:  Stuart A West; Ashleigh S Griffin; Andy Gardner
Journal:  Curr Biol       Date:  2007-08-21       Impact factor: 10.834

5.  Greenbeards.

Authors:  Andy Gardner; Stuart A West
Journal:  Evolution       Date:  2009-09-23       Impact factor: 3.694

Review 6.  Altruism, spite, and greenbeards.

Authors:  Stuart A West; Andy Gardner
Journal:  Science       Date:  2010-03-12       Impact factor: 47.728

7.  Constraints on the origin and maintenance of genetic kin recognition.

Authors:  François Rousset; Denis Roze
Journal:  Evolution       Date:  2007-08-17       Impact factor: 3.694

8.  FLO1 is a variable green beard gene that drives biofilm-like cooperation in budding yeast.

Authors:  Scott Smukalla; Marina Caldara; Nathalie Pochet; Anne Beauvais; Stephanie Guadagnini; Chen Yan; Marcelo D Vinces; An Jansen; Marie Christine Prevost; Jean-Paul Latgé; Gerald R Fink; Kevin R Foster; Kevin J Verstrepen
Journal:  Cell       Date:  2008-11-14       Impact factor: 41.582

9.  Natural selection fails to optimize mutation rates for long-term adaptation on rugged fitness landscapes.

Authors:  Jeff Clune; Dusan Misevic; Charles Ofria; Richard E Lenski; Santiago F Elena; Rafael Sanjuán
Journal:  PLoS Comput Biol       Date:  2008-09-26       Impact factor: 4.475

10.  Kin discrimination increases with genetic distance in a social amoeba.

Authors:  Elizabeth A Ostrowski; Mariko Katoh; Gad Shaulsky; David C Queller; Joan E Strassmann
Journal:  PLoS Biol       Date:  2008-11-25       Impact factor: 8.029

View more
  7 in total

Review 1.  New insights into bacterial adaptation through in vivo and in silico experimental evolution.

Authors:  Thomas Hindré; Carole Knibbe; Guillaume Beslon; Dominique Schneider
Journal:  Nat Rev Microbiol       Date:  2012-03-27       Impact factor: 60.633

2.  Selection methods regulate evolution of cooperation in digital evolution.

Authors:  Pawel Lichocki; Dario Floreano; Laurent Keller
Journal:  J R Soc Interface       Date:  2013-10-23       Impact factor: 4.118

3.  Task-switching costs promote the evolution of division of labor and shifts in individuality.

Authors:  Heather J Goldsby; Anna Dornhaus; Benjamin Kerr; Charles Ofria
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2012-08-07       Impact factor: 11.205

4.  Speciation without Pre-Defined Fitness Functions.

Authors:  Robin Gras; Abbas Golestani; Andrew P Hendry; Melania E Cristescu
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-09-15       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  A case study of the de novo evolution of a complex odometric behavior in digital organisms.

Authors:  Laura M Grabowski; David M Bryson; Fred C Dyer; Robert T Pennock; Charles Ofria
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-04-08       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  The evolutionary origin of somatic cells under the dirty work hypothesis.

Authors:  Heather J Goldsby; David B Knoester; Charles Ofria; Benjamin Kerr
Journal:  PLoS Biol       Date:  2014-05-13       Impact factor: 8.029

7.  The effect of conflicting pressures on the evolution of division of labor.

Authors:  Heather J Goldsby; David B Knoester; Benjamin Kerr; Charles Ofria
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-08-05       Impact factor: 3.240

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.