Cited by 36Evolutionary Game Theory and CooperationEvolution and Genetic DynamicsBacterial biofilms and quorum sensing

Kin selection for cooperation in natural bacterial populations

Open access
Belcher, Laurence J., Dewar, Anna E., Ghoul, Melanie, West, Stuart A.·2022·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract

Significance: Bacteria secrete many molecules outside the cell, where they provide benefits to other cells. One potential reason for producing these “public goods” is that they benefit closely related cells that share the gene for cooperation (kin selection). While many laboratory studies have supported this hypothesis, there is a lack of evidence that kin selection favors cooperation in natural populations. We examined bacterial genomes from the environment and used population genetics theory to analyze the DNA sequences. Our analyses suggest that public goods cooperation has indeed been favored by kin selection in natural populations.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1073/pnas.2119070119

Cites

95 of 95 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Most early animals-such as Ediacarans-had limited or no mobility, entailing that individuals remained close to their point of origin, resulting in aggregations of closely related individuals and enhancing opportunities for indirect fitness benefits of cooperation.

    “Second, most early animals—such as Ediacarans—had limited (or no) mobility, entailing that individuals remained close to their point of origin, resulting in aggregations of closely related individuals and enhancing opportunities for indirect fitness benefits of cooperation, as observed in bacteria [26].”

    From The social origins of consciousness (2025) · cites this paper as [26]

    Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Particularly successful areas, such as the evolution of sex ratios and cooperation, have produced comparative studies that can explain 20-40% of the variation in data across species.

    “Particularly successful areas, such as the evolution of sex ratios and cooperation, have produced comparative studies that can explain 20–40% of the variation in data across species124,125.”

    From A phylogenetic approach to comparative genomics (2025) · cites this paper as [125]

    The Conclusions (page unavailable) say that comparative studies across species found higher cooperation where relatedness is higher. The paper does not report that such studies explain 20–40% of variation across species, and it does not substantiate that figure for sex ratios; searches for the percentage, explained variation, and sex-ratio comparative studies found no matching passage. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [97]L. J. Belcher, A. E. Dewar, M. Ghoul, S. A. West, Kin selection for cooperation in natural bacterial populations. Oxford University Research Archive. 10.5287/bodleian:7J4Md7bA2. Deposited 12 January 2022. PMC8892524 35193981 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Belcher, L. J., Dewar, A. E., Ghoul, M., & West, S. A.
Affiliations
University of Oxford (GB)
Corresponding author
Belcher, Laurence J.
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2022-02-22
Volume
119
Issue
9
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
OpenAlex
W4213441936
Cited by
36
References
95
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 4 · 2019: 1
FWCI
9.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Evolutionary Game Theory and Cooperation
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Evolution and Genetic Dynamics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Bacterial biofilms and quorum sensing
Keywords
kin selection, bacterial cooperation, public goods, bacterial genomes, relatedness, population genetics
MeSH terms
Genes, Bacterial, Mutation, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Bacterial Physiological Phenomena, Quorum Sensing

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review