Umeå University's logo

umu.sePublications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Why have aggregative multicellular organisms stayed simple?
Interdisciplinary Graduate Program in Quantitative Biosciences, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, United States; School of Biological Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology, GA, Atlanta, United States.
School of Biological Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology, GA, Atlanta, United States.
Interdisciplinary Graduate Program in Quantitative Biosciences, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, United States; School of Biological Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology, GA, Atlanta, United States.
Umeå University, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Molecular Biology (Faculty of Medicine).
Show others and affiliations
2021 (English)In: Current Genetics, ISSN 0172-8083, E-ISSN 1432-0983, Vol. 67, no 6, p. 871-876Article, review/survey (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Multicellularity has evolved numerous times across the tree of life. One of the most fundamental distinctions among multicellular organisms is their developmental mode: whether they stay together during growth and develop clonally, or form a group through the aggregation of free-living cells. The five eukaryotic lineages to independently evolve complex multicellularity (animals, plants, red algae, brown algae, and fungi) all develop clonally. This fact has largely been explained through social evolutionary theory’s lens of cooperation and conflict, where cheating within non-clonal groups has the potential to undermine multicellular adaptation. Multicellular organisms that form groups via aggregation could mitigate the costs of cheating by evolving kin recognition systems that prevent the formation of chimeric groups. However, recent work suggests that selection for the ability to aggregate quickly may constrain the evolution of highly specific kin recognition, sowing the seeds for persistent evolutionary conflict. Importantly, other features of aggregative multicellular life cycles may independently act to constrain the evolution of complex multicellularity. All known aggregative multicellular organisms are facultatively multicellular (as opposed to obligately multicellular), allowing unicellular-level adaptation to environmental selection. Because they primarily exist in a unicellular state, it may be difficult for aggregative multicellular organisms to evolve multicellular traits that carry pleiotropic cell-level fitness costs. Thus, even in the absence of social conflict, aggregative multicellular organisms may have limited potential for the evolution of complex multicellularity.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Springer, 2021. Vol. 67, no 6, p. 871-876
Keywords [en]
Complexity, Evolution, Major evolutionary transitions, Multicellularity, Social evolution
National Category
Evolutionary Biology
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-184689DOI: 10.1007/s00294-021-01193-0ISI: 000659774300001PubMedID: 34114051Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-85107483610OAI: oai:DiVA.org:umu-184689DiVA, id: diva2:1568134
Available from: 2021-06-17 Created: 2021-06-17 Last updated: 2022-01-12Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMedScopus

Authority records

Pentz, Jennifer T.

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Pentz, Jennifer T.
By organisation
Department of Molecular Biology (Faculty of Medicine)
In the same journal
Current Genetics
Evolutionary Biology

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 259 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf