Resource Competition: When communities collide
In an unending process that Charles Darwin called “the struggle for existence,” all organisms compete for survival. Studies of microbes, which live in complex communities that contain hundreds of interacting species, have taught us much about the dynamics of this struggle (Vetsigian et al., 2011). Moreover, we have recently learned that entire microbial communities can behave as cohesive structures, responding to change and challenge as if each community was a single organism. In the case of fecal transplants, for example, when a healthy microbial community is introduced into the bowel of a sick patient, we often observe the new community outcompeting the resident community responsible for the disease (Khoruts et al., 2010).
But why and how does one of these microbial communities outcompete another? What makes them behave in a cohesive way, instead of collapsing into their constituent species under the pressure of such competition? Now, in eLife, Mikhail Tikhonov of Harvard University reports how a simple modeling framework can help us to understand what happens when microbial communities collide (Tikhonov, 2016).
One way to understand how one microbial community competes with another is to take a “bottom-up” approach and describe the interactions between each species in the community. Within a single community, however, many chemical, physical and ecological processes happen simultaneously. Given the sheer number of processes at work when two communities compete, predicting the outcome of a competition event from the bottom up is daunting. Even so, sophisticated computational models may provide a route toward making such predictions (Klitgord and Segrè, 2010; Freilich et al., 2011).
Another way to explore the mysteries of this competition is to look at the problem from a “top-down” perspective. Here the idea is to use simplified mathematical models that focus on large-scale changes to look for statistical or organizational principles that shape communities (O'Dwyer et al., 2012; Hekstra and Leibler, 2012).
Tikhonov takes a top-down approach and builds on a classic ecological model proposed by the late Robert MacArthur almost 50 years ago (MacArthur, 1969). In the model, environments are uniform and contain multiple resources. The species that populate these environments are distinguished only by the resources they can use and by the price they pay for using those resources. Each species may consume one or many resources, although consuming more resources comes at an increasing cost. Critically, the model permits no cooperation between species: they can only compete with each other for resources.
When an environment is first populated by a random set of organisms in Tikhonov’s model, the population achieves an equilibrium that is determined by the different species present in the community. You might expect that the species with the lowest nutrient costs for reproduction would come to dominate the community at equilibrium. But because the growth of each species depends on the other species present in the community, things turn out differently. For example, a species that can grow efficiently on a resource for which there is high demand from other species will ultimately be forced to share that resource, thus slowing its growth. However, a specialized species that can grow and reproduce slowly on a little-used resource will eventually flourish.
Tikhonov’s model shows that the community dynamics modeled in this way do not optimize the fitness of individuals, but instead optimize the community “fitness”, as measured by the ability of the entire population to consume resources fully: the more thoroughly a community exhausts the available resources, the more fit it is (Figure 1). A similar idea has been proposed previously for predicting the outcome of competition between species (Tilman, 1982).
With this framework in place, Tikhonov carried out simulations in which two initial populations of different species are seeded in entirely separate environments and allowed to evolve to equilibrium. When that is achieved, the species from both environments are mixed together and allowed to equilibrate once more, and the resulting composition of the combined community is examined.
Unexpectedly, the fitness of individual species does not reliably predict which species survive and thrive during this coalescence process. Instead, the overall fitness of each initial community is a much better predictor of the composition of the final combined community. For example, a community composed of low-performing species that exhaustively depletes resources in its environment outcompetes a community of high-performing species that uses resources poorly. Tikhonov shows that this is a direct consequence of interactions that cause organisms to influence their environment because this alters the fitness of individual species regardless of how well they perform in a random environment. For example, if a community contains a species that drives a specific resource to very low levels, the presence of this species `constructs’ an environment for other species in the community where this resource level is low. Thus, remarkably, communities cohere even when all the species in the community selfishly compete with each other. At present it is not known if the mechanism proposed by Tikhonov for community cohesion is at play in real-world processes like fecal transplants, but this is an important avenue for future work.
Microbial ecologists have long used the metaphor of the community as an individual (Shapiro, 1998). Tikhonov’s model makes this metaphor mathematically exact. In particular, the changing abundances of different species in the community act in the same way as regulated metabolic pathways act within a single organism as it responds to changes in the availability of resources.
Though conventional logic might lead us to assume that cohesive communities arise from cooperative interactions, Tikhonov’s model forces us to think again, reminding us of the critical role that theory can play in helping us understand systems as complex as microbial communities. In the future, with sequencing data now available on microbial communities in virtually any setting, our search for the signatures of community cohesion during competition will be guided by theory.
Competitive and cooperative metabolic interactions in bacterial communitiesNature Communications 2:589–587.https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms1597
Changes in the composition of the human fecal microbiome after bacteriotherapy for recurrent Clostridium difficile-associated diarrheaJournal of Clinical Gastroenterology 44:354–360.https://doi.org/10.1097/MCG.0b013e3181c87e02
Environments that induce synthetic microbial ecosystemsPLoS Computational Biology 6:e1001002.https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1001002
Species packing, and what competition minimizesProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 64:1369–1371.https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.64.4.1369
Phylogenetic diversity theory sheds light on the structure of microbial communitiesPLoS Computational Biology 8:e1002832.https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002832
Thinking about bacterial populations as multicellular organismsAnnual Review of Microbiology 52:81–104.https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.micro.52.1.81
BookResource Competition and Community StructurePrinceton University Press.
Article and author information
- Version of Record published: July 15, 2016 (version 1)
© 2016, Merritt et al.
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.
- Page views
Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: Crossref, PubMed Central, Scopus.
Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)
Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)
Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)
- Computational and Systems Biology
Wound response programs are often activated during neoplastic growth in tumors. In both wound repair and tumor growth, cells respond to acute stress and balance the activation of multiple programs, including apoptosis, proliferation, and cell migration. Central to those responses are the activation of the JNK/MAPK and JAK/STAT signaling pathways. Yet, to what extent these signaling cascades interact at the cis-regulatory level and how they orchestrate different regulatory and phenotypic responses is still unclear. Here, we aim to characterize the regulatory states that emerge and cooperate in the wound response, using the Drosophila melanogaster wing disc as a model system, and compare these with cancer cell states induced by rasV12scrib-/- in the eye disc. We used single-cell multiome profiling to derive enhancer gene regulatory networks (eGRNs) by integrating chromatin accessibility and gene expression signals. We identify a ‘proliferative’ eGRN, active in the majority of wounded cells and controlled by AP-1 and STAT. In a smaller, but distinct population of wound cells, a ‘senescent’ eGRN is activated and driven by C/EBP-like transcription factors (Irbp18, Xrp1, Slow border, and Vrille) and Scalloped. These two eGRN signatures are found to be active in tumor cells at both gene expression and chromatin accessibility levels. Our single-cell multiome and eGRNs resource offers an in-depth characterization of the senescence markers, together with a new perspective on the shared gene regulatory programs acting during wound response and oncogenesis.
- Cancer Biology
- Computational and Systems Biology
Colorectal cancer (CRC) remains a challenging and deadly disease with high tumor microenvironment (TME) heterogeneity. Using an integrative multi-omics analysis and artificial intelligence-enabled spatial analysis of whole-slide images, we performed a comprehensive characterization of TME in colorectal cancer (CCCRC). CRC samples were classified into four CCCRC subtypes with distinct TME features, namely, C1 as the proliferative subtype with low immunogenicity; C2 as the immunosuppressed subtype with the terminally exhausted immune characteristics; C3 as the immune-excluded subtype with the distinct upregulation of stromal components and a lack of T cell infiltration in the tumor core; and C4 as the immunomodulatory subtype with the remarkable upregulation of anti-tumor immune components. The four CCCRC subtypes had distinct histopathologic and molecular characteristics, therapeutic efficacy, and prognosis. We found that the C1 subtype may be suitable for chemotherapy and cetuximab, the C2 subtype may benefit from a combination of chemotherapy and bevacizumab, the C3 subtype has increased sensitivity to the WNT pathway inhibitor WIKI4, and the C4 subtype is a potential candidate for immune checkpoint blockade treatment. Importantly, we established a simple gene classifier for accurate identification of each CCCRC subtype. Collectively our integrative analysis ultimately established a holistic framework to thoroughly dissect the TME of CRC, and the CCCRC classification system with high biological interpretability may contribute to biomarker discovery and future clinical trial design.