The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Cooperation in the dark: signalling and collective action in quorum-sensing bacteria
Open accessAbstract
The study of quorum-sensing bacteria has revealed a widespread mechanism of coordinating bacterial gene expression with cell density. By monitoring a constitutively produced signal molecule, individual bacteria can limit their expression of group-beneficial phenotypes to cell densities that guarantee an effective group outcome. In this paper, we attempt to move away from a commonly expressed view that these impressive feats of coordination are examples of multicellularity in prokaryotic populations. Here, we look more closely at the individual conflict underlying this cooperation, illustrating that, even under significant levels of genetic conflict, signalling and resultant cooperative behaviour can stably exist. A predictive two-trait model of signal strength and of the extent of cooperation is developed as a function of relatedness (reflecting multiplicity of infection) and basic population demographic parameters. The model predicts that the strength of quorum signalling will increase as conflict (multiplicity of infecting strains) increases, as individuals attempt to coax more cooperative contributions from their competitors, leading to a devaluation of the signal as an indicator of density. Conversely, as genetic conflict increases, the model predicts that the threshold density for cooperation will increase and the subsequent strength of group cooperation will be depressed.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Mate selection—A selection for a handicap
Zahavi, A. (1975) · Journal of Theoretical Biology · doi:10.1016/0022-5193(75)90111-3 · Cited by 5,251
The continuous Sir Philip Sidney game: a simple model of biological signalling
Johnstone, R. A., & Grafen, A. (1992) · Journal of Theoretical Biology · doi:10.1016/s0022-5193(05)80674-5 · Cited by 118
Self-citation
Cited by
West, S. A., Diggle, S. P., Buckling, A., Gardner, A., & Griffin, A. S. (2007) · Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics · doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.38.091206.095740 · Cited by 696
Quorum Sensing and the Social Evolution of Bacterial Virulence
Rumbaugh, K. P., Diggle, S. P., Watters, C. M., Ross-Gillespie, A., Griffin, A. S., & West, S. A. (2009) · Current Biology · doi:10.1016/j.cub.2009.01.050 · Cited by 301
Strategies of microbial cheater control
Travisano, M., & Velicer, G. J. (2004) · Trends in Microbiology · doi:10.1016/j.tim.2003.12.009 · Cited by 265
McBrayer, D. N., Gantman, B. K., & Tal-Gan, Y. (2019) · ACS Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1021/acsinfecdis.9b00097 · Cited by 18
Metadata
- Authors
- Brown, S. P., & Johnstone, R. A.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences
- Publisher
- The Royal Society
- Published
- 2001-05-07
- Volume
- 268
- Issue
- 1470
- Pages
- 961-965
- ISSN
- 0080-4649 (ISSN-L)
- 0962-8452
- 1471-2954
- OpenAlex
- W2013664532
- Cited by
- 166
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 0.87
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Cooperation in the dark: signalling and collective action in quorum-sensing bacteria. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1098/rspb.2001.1609
- The paper
- Brown, S. P., & Johnstone, R. A. (2001). Cooperation in the dark: signalling and collective action in quorum-sensing bacteria. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2001.1609
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.