Autonomous and non-autonomous traits mediate social cooperation in Dictyostelium discoideum

In the trishanku (triA(-)) mutant of the social amoeba Dictyostelium discoideum, aggregates are smaller than usual and the spore mass is located mid-way up the stalk, not at the apex. We have monitored aggregate territory size, spore allocation and fruiting body morphology in chimaeric groups of (quasi-wild-type) Ax2 and triA(-) cells. Developmental canalisation breaks down in chimaeras and leads to an increase in phenotypic variation. A minority of triA(-) cells causes largely Ax2 aggregation streams to break up; the effect is not due to the counting factor. Most chimaeric fruiting bodies resemble those of Ax2 or triA(-). Others are double-deckers with a single stalk and two spore masses, one each at the terminus and midway along the stalk. The relative number of spores belonging to the two genotypes depends both on the mixing ratio and on the fruiting body morphology. In double-deckers formed from 1:1 chimaeras, the upper spore mass has more Ax2 spores, and the lower spore mass more triA(-) spores, than expected. Thus, the traits under study depend partly on the cells' own genotype and partly on the phenotypes, and so genotypes, of other cells: they are both autonomous and non-autonomous. These findings strengthen the parallels between multicellular development and behaviour in social groups. Besides that, they reinforce the point that a trait can be associated with a genotype only in a specified context.

Social selection and the evolution of cooperative groups: The example of the cellular slime moulds

In social selection the phenotype of an individual depends on its own genotype as well as on the phenotypes, and so genotypes, of other individuals. This makes it impossible to associate an invariant phenotype with a genotype: the social context is crucial. Descriptions of metazoan development, which often is viewed as the acme of cooperative social behaviour, ignore or downplay this fact. The implicit justification for doing so is based on a group-selectionist point of view. Namely, embryos are clones, therefore all cells have the same evolutionary interest, and the visible differences between cells result from a common strategy. The reasoning is flawed, because phenotypic heterogeneity within groups can result from contingent choices made by cells from a flexible repertoire as in multicellular development. What makes that possible is phenotypic plasticity, namely the ability of a genotype to exhibit different phenotypes. However, co-operative social behaviour with division of labour requires that different phenotypes interact appropriately, not that they belong to the same genotype, or have overlapping genetic interests. We sketch a possible route to the evolution of social groups that involves many steps: (a) individuals that happen to be in spatial proximity benefit simply by virtue of their number; (b) traits that are already present act as preadaptations and improve the efficiency of the group; and (c) new adaptations evolve under selection in the social context-that is, via interactions between individuals-and further strengthen group behaviour. The Dictyostelid or cellular slime mould amoebae (CSMs) become multicellular in an unusual way, by the aggregation of free-living cells. In nature the resulting group can be genetically homogeneous (clonal) or heterogeneous (polyclonal); in either case its development, which displays strong cooperation between cells (to the extent of so-called altruism) is not affected. This makes the CSMs exemplars for the study of social behaviour.

Evolution of social behaviour in the primitively eusocial wasp Ropalidia marginata: do we need to look beyond kin selection?

Ropalidia marginata is a primitively eusocial wasp widely distributed in peninsular India. Although solitary females found a small proportion of nests, the vast majority of new nests are founded by small groups of females. In suchmultiple foundress nests, a single dominant female functions as the queen and lays eggs, while the rest function as sterile workers and care for the queen's brood. Previous attempts to understand the evolution of social behaviour and altruism in this species have employed inclusive fitness theory (kin selection) as a guiding framework. Although inclusive fitness theory is quite successful in explaining the high propensity of the wasps to found nests in groups, several features of their social organization suggest that forces other than kin selection may also have played a significant role in the evolution of this species. These features include lowering of genetic relatedness owing to polyandry and serial polygyny, nest foundation by unrelated individuals, acceptance of young non-nest-mates, a combination of well-developed nest-mate recognition and lack of intra-colony kin recognition, a combination of meek and docile queens and a decentralized self-organized work force, long reproductive queues with cryptic heir designates and conflict-free queen succession, all resulting in extreme intra-colony cooperation and inter-colony conflict.