MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4288447593 · doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1010292

Cheater suppression and stochastic clearance through quorum sensing

2022· article· en· W4288447593 on OpenAlexafffund
Alexander S. Moffett, Peter J. Thomas, Michael Hinczewski, Andrew W. Eckford

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS Computational Biology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEvolutionary Game Theory and Cooperation
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersNational Science Foundation of Sri LankaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAdvanced Research Projects AgencyDefense Advanced Research Projects AgencyNational Science Foundation
KeywordsQuorum sensingPublic goodProduction (economics)PopulationBiologyComputer scienceEconomicsMicroeconomicsBiofilmGeneticsBacteriaMedicineEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The evolutionary consequences of quorum sensing in regulating bacterial cooperation are not fully understood. In this study, we reveal unexpected effects of regulating public good production through quorum sensing on bacterial population dynamics, showing that quorum sensing can be a collectively harmful alternative to unregulated production. We analyze a birth-death model of bacterial population dynamics accounting for public good production and the presence of non-producing cheaters. Our model demonstrates that when demographic noise is a factor, the consequences of controlling public good production according to quorum sensing depend on the cost of public good production and the growth rate of populations in the absence of public goods. When public good production is inexpensive, quorum sensing is a destructive alternative to unconditional production, in terms of the mean population extinction time. When costs are higher, quorum sensing becomes a constructive strategy for the producing strain, both stabilizing cooperation and decreasing the risk of population extinction.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.875

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.270 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS Computational BiologySame topicEvolutionary Game Theory and CooperationFrench-language works237,207