4.6 Article

Mechanical interactions in bacterial colonies and the surfing probability of beneficial mutations

期刊

出版社

ROYAL SOC
DOI: 10.1098/rsif.2017.0073

关键词

biological evolution; bacterial colony; interactions; surfing probability; roughness

资金

  1. Royal Society of Edinburgh
  2. National Institute of General Medical Sciences of the National Institutes of Health [R01GM115851]
  3. National Science Foundation Career Award
  4. Simons Investigator award from the Simons Foundation
  5. Division Of Physics
  6. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien [1555330] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  7. BBSRC [BB/R012415/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Bacterial conglomerates such as biofilms and microcolonies are ubiquitous in nature and play an important role in industry and medicine. In contrast to well-mixed cultures routinely used in microbial research, bacteria in a microcolony interact mechanically with one another and with the substrate to which they are attached. Here, we use a computer model of a microbial colony of rod-shaped cells to investigate how physical interactions between cells determine their motion in the colony and how this affects biological evolution. We show that the probability that a faster-growing mutant 'surfs' at the colony's frontier and creates a macroscopic sector depends on physical properties of cells (shape, elasticity and friction). Although all these factors contribute to the surfing probability in seemingly different ways, their effects can be summarized by two summary statistics that characterize the front roughness and cell alignment. Our predictions are confirmed by experiments in which we measure the surfing probability for colonies of different front roughness. Our results show that physical interactions between bacterial cells play an important role in biological evolution of new traits, and suggest that these interactions may be relevant to processes such as de novo evolution of antibiotic resistance.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据