4.5 Article

A molecular mechanism that stabilizes cooperative secretions in Pseudomonas aeruginosa

Journal

MOLECULAR MICROBIOLOGY
Volume 79, Issue 1, Pages 166-179

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2958.2010.07436.x

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Institute of General Medical Sciences Center of Excellence [5P50 GM 068763-01]
  2. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF GENERAL MEDICAL SCIENCES [P50GM068763] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Bacterial populations frequently act as a collective by secreting a wide range of compounds necessary for cell-cell communication, host colonization and virulence. How such behaviours avoid exploitation by spontaneous 'cheater' mutants that use but do not contribute to secretions remains unclear. We investigate this question using Pseudomonas aeruginosa swarming, a collective surface motility requiring massive secretions of rhamnolipid biosurfactants. We first show that swarming is immune to the evolution of rhlA-'cheaters'. We then demonstrate that P. aeruginosa resists cheating through metabolic prudence: wild-type cells secrete biosurfactants only when the cost of their production and impact on individual fitness is low, therefore preventing non-secreting strains from gaining an evolutionary advantage. Metabolic prudence works because the carbon-rich biosurfactants are only produced when growth is limited by another growth limiting nutrient, the nitrogen source. By genetically manipulating a strain to produce the biosurfactants constitutively we show that swarming becomes cheatable: a non-producing strain rapidly outcompetes and replaces this obligate cooperator. We argue that metabolic prudence, which may first evolve as a direct response to cheating or simply to optimize growth, can explain the maintenance of massive secretions in many bacteria. More generally, prudent regulation is a mechanism to stabilize cooperation.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available