Proteases hold the key to an exclusive mutualism

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Mutualisms, cooperative interactions between species, generally involve an economic exchange: species exchange commodities that are cheap for them to provide, for ones that cannot be obtained affordably or at all. But these associations can only succeed if effective partners can be enticed to interact. In some mutualisms, partners can actively seek one another out. However, plants, which use mutualists for a wide array of essential life history functions, do not have this option. Instead, natural selection has repeatedly favoured the evolution of rewards - nutritional substances (such as sugar-rich nectar and fleshy fruit) with which plants attract certain organisms whose feeding activities can then be co-opted for their own benefit. The trouble with rewards, however, is that they are usually also attractive to organisms that confer no benefits at all. Losing rewards to 'exploiters' makes a plant immediately less attractive to the mutualists it requires; if the reward cannot be renewed quickly (or at all), then mutualistic service is precluded entirely. Thus, it is in plants' interests to either restrict rewards to only the most beneficial partners or somehow punish or deter exploiters. Yet, at least in cases where the rewards are highly nutritious, we can expect counter-selection for exploiter traits that permit them to skirt such control. How, then, can mutualisms persist? In this issue, Orona-Tamayo et al. () describe a remarkable adaptation that safeguards one particularly costly reward from nonmutualists. Their study helps to explain the evolutionary success of an iconic interaction and illuminates one way in which mutualism as a whole can persist in the face of exploitation.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)3882-3884
Number of pages3
JournalMolecular Ecology
Volume22
Issue number15
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 2013

Fingerprint

Symbiosis
mutualism
Reward
Peptide Hydrolases
proteinases
commodity exchange
organisms
nectar
natural selection
commodity
cooperatives
sugar
life history
Plant Nectar
fruit
sugars
Genetic Selection
economics
fruits
Fruit

Keywords

  • angiosperms
  • co-evolution
  • community ecology
  • ecological genetics
  • insects
  • mutualism
  • species interactions

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics
  • Genetics

Cite this

Proteases hold the key to an exclusive mutualism. / Bronstein, Judith L.

In: Molecular Ecology, Vol. 22, No. 15, 08.2013, p. 3882-3884.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{7e9a1631a5984fa68ad897d07d6ab35b,
title = "Proteases hold the key to an exclusive mutualism",
abstract = "Mutualisms, cooperative interactions between species, generally involve an economic exchange: species exchange commodities that are cheap for them to provide, for ones that cannot be obtained affordably or at all. But these associations can only succeed if effective partners can be enticed to interact. In some mutualisms, partners can actively seek one another out. However, plants, which use mutualists for a wide array of essential life history functions, do not have this option. Instead, natural selection has repeatedly favoured the evolution of rewards - nutritional substances (such as sugar-rich nectar and fleshy fruit) with which plants attract certain organisms whose feeding activities can then be co-opted for their own benefit. The trouble with rewards, however, is that they are usually also attractive to organisms that confer no benefits at all. Losing rewards to 'exploiters' makes a plant immediately less attractive to the mutualists it requires; if the reward cannot be renewed quickly (or at all), then mutualistic service is precluded entirely. Thus, it is in plants' interests to either restrict rewards to only the most beneficial partners or somehow punish or deter exploiters. Yet, at least in cases where the rewards are highly nutritious, we can expect counter-selection for exploiter traits that permit them to skirt such control. How, then, can mutualisms persist? In this issue, Orona-Tamayo et al. () describe a remarkable adaptation that safeguards one particularly costly reward from nonmutualists. Their study helps to explain the evolutionary success of an iconic interaction and illuminates one way in which mutualism as a whole can persist in the face of exploitation.",
keywords = "angiosperms, co-evolution, community ecology, ecological genetics, insects, mutualism, species interactions",
author = "Bronstein, {Judith L}",
year = "2013",
month = "8",
doi = "10.1111/mec.12395",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "22",
pages = "3882--3884",
journal = "Molecular Ecology",
issn = "0962-1083",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "15",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Proteases hold the key to an exclusive mutualism

AU - Bronstein, Judith L

PY - 2013/8

Y1 - 2013/8

N2 - Mutualisms, cooperative interactions between species, generally involve an economic exchange: species exchange commodities that are cheap for them to provide, for ones that cannot be obtained affordably or at all. But these associations can only succeed if effective partners can be enticed to interact. In some mutualisms, partners can actively seek one another out. However, plants, which use mutualists for a wide array of essential life history functions, do not have this option. Instead, natural selection has repeatedly favoured the evolution of rewards - nutritional substances (such as sugar-rich nectar and fleshy fruit) with which plants attract certain organisms whose feeding activities can then be co-opted for their own benefit. The trouble with rewards, however, is that they are usually also attractive to organisms that confer no benefits at all. Losing rewards to 'exploiters' makes a plant immediately less attractive to the mutualists it requires; if the reward cannot be renewed quickly (or at all), then mutualistic service is precluded entirely. Thus, it is in plants' interests to either restrict rewards to only the most beneficial partners or somehow punish or deter exploiters. Yet, at least in cases where the rewards are highly nutritious, we can expect counter-selection for exploiter traits that permit them to skirt such control. How, then, can mutualisms persist? In this issue, Orona-Tamayo et al. () describe a remarkable adaptation that safeguards one particularly costly reward from nonmutualists. Their study helps to explain the evolutionary success of an iconic interaction and illuminates one way in which mutualism as a whole can persist in the face of exploitation.

AB - Mutualisms, cooperative interactions between species, generally involve an economic exchange: species exchange commodities that are cheap for them to provide, for ones that cannot be obtained affordably or at all. But these associations can only succeed if effective partners can be enticed to interact. In some mutualisms, partners can actively seek one another out. However, plants, which use mutualists for a wide array of essential life history functions, do not have this option. Instead, natural selection has repeatedly favoured the evolution of rewards - nutritional substances (such as sugar-rich nectar and fleshy fruit) with which plants attract certain organisms whose feeding activities can then be co-opted for their own benefit. The trouble with rewards, however, is that they are usually also attractive to organisms that confer no benefits at all. Losing rewards to 'exploiters' makes a plant immediately less attractive to the mutualists it requires; if the reward cannot be renewed quickly (or at all), then mutualistic service is precluded entirely. Thus, it is in plants' interests to either restrict rewards to only the most beneficial partners or somehow punish or deter exploiters. Yet, at least in cases where the rewards are highly nutritious, we can expect counter-selection for exploiter traits that permit them to skirt such control. How, then, can mutualisms persist? In this issue, Orona-Tamayo et al. () describe a remarkable adaptation that safeguards one particularly costly reward from nonmutualists. Their study helps to explain the evolutionary success of an iconic interaction and illuminates one way in which mutualism as a whole can persist in the face of exploitation.

KW - angiosperms

KW - co-evolution

KW - community ecology

KW - ecological genetics

KW - insects

KW - mutualism

KW - species interactions

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84880768869&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84880768869&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/mec.12395

DO - 10.1111/mec.12395

M3 - Article

C2 - 24058927

AN - SCOPUS:84880768869

VL - 22

SP - 3882

EP - 3884

JO - Molecular Ecology

JF - Molecular Ecology

SN - 0962-1083

IS - 15

ER -