Tradeoff breaking as a model of evolutionary transitions in individuality and limits of the fitness-decoupling metaphor
- Philosophy Department, Macquarie University, Australia
- Department of Philosophy & Charles Perkins Centre, The University of Sydney, Australia
- Department of Evolutionary Theory, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Biology, Germany
- Centre d'Écologie Fonctionnelle et Évolutive (CEFE), CNRS, France
- Laboratoire Biophysique et Évolution, CBI, ESPCI Paris, Université PSL, CNRS 75005 Paris, France, France
- Department of Microbial Population Biology, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Biology, Germany
- Institute of Microbiology, Kiel University, Germany
Figures
Box 1—figure 1
Valid fitness comparisons require measures over the same set of events (same environment and timescale).
Invalid comparisons: (a, c, e). Valid comparisons: (b, d, f).
Figure 1
Fitness-decoupling observation in the Pseudomonas system.
Comparison of collective-level persistence (measured as the proportion of collective persistence after one generation when competed against an ancestral reference strain) and cell (particle) fitness …
Figure 2
Collective and particle fitnesses are not measured over the same environment.
During an evolutionary transition in individuality, there are two levels of organisation: collectives (blue triangles) are composed of particles (orange disks). Both levels have their own genealogy …
Figure 3
Life cycle of collectives as a size–class population projection model.
Circles represent a size class of collectives; arrows represent the flow of individuals between size classes. At each time step, collectives of size class i can grow (if i < N), shrink, or stay the …
Figure 4
Three ways to compute particle fitness ( , , and ) in a lineage starting from a single particle.
Top: each solid horizontal line represents the life span of a particle. The vertical axis has no unit and only represents population structure. Particles within the same collectives are represented …
Figure 5
The tradeoff model can reproduce the fitness-decoupling observation.
(a) Values of andf2 as a function of the trait . (b) Ancestral and derived values of whole life cycle fitness (). (c) Ancestral and derived values of counterfactual fitness (). The expected …
Figure 6
Tradeoff-breaking lineages can be inferred experimentally.
(a) Morphological and physiological N2-fixing adaptations for different cyanobacteria. Orange shaded areas indicate nitrogenase localisation. Daily rhythm of photosynthesis (solid line) and N2-fixati…
Figure 7
Tradeoff-breaking mutations do not fit the fitness-decoupling observation.
(a) Trait space with isolines of fitness. An example of a possible evolutionary trajectory is shown in green. (b) Particle (counterfactual; in red) and collective fitness ( in orange) values …
Box 2—figure 1
Tradeoff breaking in the ecological scaffolding scenario.
(a) Values of and accessible to the organism when and only can mutate (purple) and values of and accessible to the organism when only can mutate and is such that is …
Box 3—figure 1
Ratcheting and tradeoff breaking.
(a) Values of and accessible to organisms when and is free (purple), and when and is free (black). (b) Trait space with isolines of fitness ( in red, in orange) with an …
Figure 8
An adaptive scenario for evolutionary transitions in individuality as a consequence of the trait-based approach.
(1) Collective formation of particles occurs through an event that does not change the focal traits. (2) Optimisation ‘on the tradeoff’, where the traits are selected within the constraints passed …
