Inclusive fitness: 50 years on
2014; Royal Society; Volume: 369; Issue: 1642 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1098/rstb.2013.0356
ISSN1471-2970
Autores Tópico(s)Animal Behavior and Reproduction
ResumoYou have accessMoreSectionsView PDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack Citations ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmail Cite this article Gardner Andy and West Stuart A. 2014Inclusive fitness: 50 years onPhil. Trans. R. Soc. B3692013035620130356http://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2013.0356SectionYou have accessIntroductionInclusive fitness: 50 years on Andy Gardner Andy Gardner School of Biology, University of St Andrews, Dyers Brae, St Andrews KY16 9TH, UK [email protected] Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for more papers by this author and Stuart A. West Stuart A. West Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3PS, UK Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for more papers by this author Andy Gardner Andy Gardner School of Biology, University of St Andrews, Dyers Brae, St Andrews KY16 9TH, UK [email protected] Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed and Stuart A. West Stuart A. West Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3PS, UK Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Published:19 May 2014https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2013.03561. IntroductionThe cardinal problem of evolutionary biology is to explain adaptation, or the appearance of design in the living world [1,2]. Darwin [3] convincingly argued that the process of adaptation is driven by natural selection: those heritable variations—i.e. genes—that are associated with greater individual reproductive success are those that will tend to accumulate in natural populations. To the extent that the individual's genes are causally responsible for her improved fitness, natural selection leads to the individual appearing designed as if to maximize her fitness. Thus, Darwinism is a theory of both the process and the purpose of adaptation.However, correlations between an individual's genes and her fitness need not reflect a direct, causal relationship. For example, genes for altruism can be associated with greater fitness, despite the direct cost that they inflict on their bearer, if relatives interact as social partners. This is because an individual who carries genes for altruism will tend to have more altruistic social partners. That altruism can be favoured by natural selection suggests that the purpose of adaptation is not, in general, to maximize the individual's personal fitness [4].Although Darwin [3] recognized the potential for such indirect effects to drive the evolution of social behaviours, discussing the logic of kin selection theory in connection with the adaptations of sterile insect workers, it was William D. Hamilton (figure 1), more than a century later, who developed these insights into a full mathematical theory. By quantifying the relative strengths of direct selection, acting via the individual's own reproduction, and indirect selection, acting via the reproduction of the individual's relatives, Hamilton [4] revealed the ultimate criterion that natural selection uses to judge the fate of genes. Figure 1. William D. Hamilton (1936–2000). Copyright: Tokyo Zoological Park Society.Download figureOpen in new tabDownload PowerPointHamilton's rule states that any trait—altruistic or otherwise—will be favoured by natural selection if and only if the sum of its direct and indirect fitness effects exceeds zero [4–7]. That is where –c is the impact that the trait has on the individual's own reproductive success, bi is its impact on the reproductive success of the individual's ith social partner and ri is the genetic relatedness of the two individuals. This mathematical partition of fitness effects underpins the kin selection approach to evolutionary biology [8]. The general principle is that with regards to social behaviours, natural selection is mediated by any positive or negative consequences for recipients, according to their genetic relatedness to the actor. Consequently, individuals should show greater selfish restraint, and can even behave altruistically, when interacting with closer relatives [4].Having clarified the process of social adaptation, Hamilton [4] revealed its true purpose: to maximize inclusive fitness (figure 2). That is, Darwinian individuals should strive to maximize the sum of the fitness effects that they have on all their relatives (including themselves), each increment or decrement being weighted by their genetic relatedness. This is the most fundamental revision that has been made to the logic of Darwinism and—aside from a possibly apocryphal quip attributed to J. B. S. Haldane, to the effect that he would give his life to save the lives of two brothers or eight cousins—it was wholly original to Hamilton. Figure 2. Inclusive fitness comprises the effects that the actor has on her own reproductive success and the reproductive success of her relatives (solid arrows), but not the effects that her relatives have on her reproductive success or on their own reproductive success (dashed arrows). If an action incurs a direct fitness cost of c to the actor's own fitness, and provides an indirect fitness benefit of b to her social partner, then natural selection favours that action if rb − c > 0, where r is the genetic relatedness of the two individuals [4].Download figureOpen in new tabDownload PowerPointSince its inception 50 years ago, inclusive fitness theory has grown to become one of the most successful approaches in evolutionary biology. In addition to igniting an explosive interest in altruistic behaviour, it also energized the investigation of many other social traits (table 1). In all its applications, the usefulness of inclusive fitness theory, and its encapsulation in Hamilton's rule, lies in how it provides a simple conceptual framework that can be applied with relative ease to a wide range of scenarios, successfully translating between the dynamical process of natural selection and the design objective of Darwinian adaptation, on paper, in the laboratory and in the field [9–11]. Table 1.Some example areas where inclusive fitness theory has facilitated insights and understanding. Inclusive fitness theory is not the only way to model evolution, but it has proved to be an immensely productive and useful approach for studying social behaviours [9–17]. Collapse research areasadoption, alarm calls, altruism, cannibalism, conflict resolution, cooperation, dispersal, division of labour, eusociality, kin discrimination, genomic imprinting, multicellularity, mutualism, parasite virulence, parent–offspring conflict, policing, selfish genetic elements, sex allocation, sibling conflict, spite, suicide and symbiosis.In addition to its traditional focus upon individual organisms, inclusive fitness theory has been applied equally successfully to explain social interactions between genes, illuminating the evolution of selfish genetic elements and genomic imprinting [12,13]. Indeed, by translating between—and characterizing conflicts of interest within—different levels of biological organization, inclusive fitness theory provides a framework for understanding major transitions in individuality (table 2; [14]). Table 2.The major transitions in individuality, according to Bourke [14]. Collapse major transition in individualitydetailsprokaryotic cellseparate replicators (genes) → cell enclosing genomeeukaryotic cellseparate unicells → symbiotic unicellsexual reproductionasexual unicells → sexual unicellmulticellularityunicells → multicellular organismeusocialitymulticellular organisms → eusocial societyinterspecific mutualismseparate species → interspecific mutualismClearly, inclusive fitness is not a single hypothesis, but rather represents an entire programme of research. Scientific hypotheses are judged according to how amenable they are for empirical testing and how well they resist attempts at empirical falsification. By contrast, scientific research programmes are judged according to how well they facilitate the formulation and testing of hypotheses—that is, stimulating the interplay between theory and empiricism that drives progress in scientific understanding. For example, inclusive fitness theory has yielded a number of hypotheses concerning the factors driving the evolution of insect eusociality, including the 'haplodiploidy hypothesis' [4,18] and the 'monogamy hypothesis' [19–21]. The former hypothesis has not withstood detailed theoretical and empirical scrutiny, whereas the latter goes from strength to strength [19–25]. This is exactly what we expect of a productive research programme.In order to better assess the health of inclusive fitness theory on its 50th anniversary, here we showcase research showing the research programme in action, from the extremely pure, mathematical realm, through basic empirical science, to bold applications in a variety of disciplines.The first three papers of this theme issue explore the connections between inclusive fitness and the classical foundations of evolutionary theory, with Laurent Lehmann and François Rousset focusing upon population genetics, Allen Moore and co-workers focusing upon quantitative genetics, and David Queller revisiting the central mathematical result of Darwinian theory—Fisher's fundamental theorem of natural selection—from a social evolutionary perspective. These contributions are followed by an exploration of alternative mathematical approaches to inclusive fitness, with Peter Taylor and Wes Maciejewski considering social evolution in structured populations from a graph-theoretic angle and Hisashi Ohtsuki developing connections with game theory.Moving on to specific biological questions, Geoff Wild and Cody Koykka explore the evolution of cooperative breeding from a theoretical perspective, whereas Andrew Bourke and Ben Hatchwell and co-workers take the stock of the empirical successes of inclusive fitness theory on this front, illustrating comparative and focused field approaches, respectively. Descending to the level of the gene, Ben Normark and Laura Ross investigate the role for inclusive fitness conflicts to drive the evolution of genetic systems.This basic research is then followed by more applied uses of inclusive fitness theory. Helen Leggett and co-workers explore the insights that inclusive fitness theory yields for infectious disease, and Bernard Crespi and co-workers broaden out this exploration to consider non-infectious disease and 'Hamiltonian medicine', in general. We close the theme issue with Toby Kiers and Ford Denison's exploration of applications of inclusive fitness theory to agriculture, and Thom Scott-Phillips and co-workers on its application to understanding human culture.These contributions confirm that inclusive fitness theory is in excellent shape. It still dominates the study of social interactions in behavioural ecology, and continues to break new ground in other disciplines. This is a testament not only to the generality and flexibility of the theory, but also to the efforts of its practitioners, including both theoreticians who maintain a firm grasp on the natural world and empiricists who keep a close eye on the latest theoretical developments. Hamilton was one of those rare individuals who effortlessly combined theory with forays into the field, but most of the rest of us who specialize one way or the other need to communicate and collaborate to achieve the requisite interplay of theory and empiricism. Science is a social enterprise, so it may be unsurprising that inclusive fitness theory epitomizes the successful scientific research programme. The next 50 years promise to be very exciting.FootnotesOne contribution of 14 to a Theme Issue 'Inclusive fitness: 50 years on'.© 2014 The Author(s) Published by the Royal Society. All rights reserved.References1Maynard Smith J. 1969The status of neo-Darwinism. Towards a theoretical biology, 2: sketches (ed. & Waddington CH), pp. 82–89. Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press. Google Scholar2Leigh EG. 1971Adaptation and diversity. San Francisco, CA: Freeman, Cooper & Company. Google Scholar3Darwin CR. 1859The origin of species. London, UK: John Murray. Google Scholar4Hamilton WD. 1964The genetical evolution of social behaviour I & II. J. Theor. Biol. 7, 1–52. (doi:10.1016/0022-5193(64)90038-4). Crossref, PubMed, ISI, Google Scholar5Hamilton WD. 1963The evolution of altruistic behavior. Am. Nat. 97, 354–356. (doi:10.1086/497114). Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar6Hamilton WD. 1970Selfish and spiteful behaviour in an evolutionary model. Nature 228, 1218–1220. (doi:10.1038/2281218a0). Crossref, PubMed, ISI, Google Scholar7Charnov EL. 1977An elementary treatment of the genetical theory of kin selection. J. Theor. Biol. 66, 541–550. (doi:10.1016/0022-5193(77)90301-0). Crossref, PubMed, ISI, Google Scholar8Gardner A, West SA& Wild G. 2011The genetical theory of kin selection. J. Evol. Biol. 24, 1020–1043. (doi:10.1111/j.1420-9101.2011.02236.x). Crossref, PubMed, ISI, Google Scholar9Westneat DF& Fox CW. 2010Evolutionary behavioral ecology. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar10Davies NB, Krebs JR& West SA. 2012An introduction to behavioural ecology, 4th edn. Hove, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. Google Scholar11Alcock J. 2013Animal behavior, 10th edn. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates. Google Scholar12Haig D. 2002Genomic imprinting and kinship. London, UK: Rutgers University Press. Google Scholar13Burt A& Trivers R. 2006Genes in conflict. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press. Crossref, Google Scholar14Bourke AFG. 2011Principles of social evolution. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Crossref, Google Scholar15West SA. 2009Sex allocation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Crossref, Google Scholar16Clobert J, Baguette M, Benton TG& Bullock JM. 2012Dispersal ecology and evolution. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Crossref, Google Scholar17Mock DW& Parker GA. 1997The evolution of sibling rivalry. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar18Hamilton WD. 1972Altruism and related phenomena, mainly in social insects. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 3, 193–232. (doi:10.1146/annurev.es.03.110172.001205). Crossref, Google Scholar19Boomsma JJ. 2007Kin selection versus sexual selection: why the ends do not meet. Curr. Biol. 17, R673–R683. (doi:10.1016/j.cub.2007.06.033). Crossref, PubMed, ISI, Google Scholar20Boomsma JJ. 2009Lifetime monogamy and the evolution of eusociality. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 364, 3191–3207. (doi:10.1098/rstb.2009.0101). Link, ISI, Google Scholar21Boomsma JJ. 2013Beyond promiscuity: mate-choice commitments in social breeding. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 368, 20120050. (doi:10.1098/rstb.2012.0050). Link, ISI, Google Scholar22Hughes WOH, Oldroyd BP, Beekman M& Ratnieks FLW. 2008Ancestral monogamy shows kin selection is the key to eusociality. Science 320, 1213–1216. (doi:10.1126/science.1156108). Crossref, PubMed, ISI, Google Scholar23Cornwallis C, West SA, Davies KE& Griffin AS. 2010Promiscuity and the evolutionary transition to complex societies. Nature 466, 969–972. (doi:10.1038/nature09335). Crossref, PubMed, ISI, Google Scholar24Gardner A, Alpedrinha J& West SA. 2012Haplodiploidy and the evolution of eusociality: split sex ratios. Am. Nat. 179, 240–256. (doi:10.1086/663683). Crossref, PubMed, ISI, Google Scholar25Alpedrinha J, West SA& Gardner A. 2013Haplodiploidy and the evolution of eusociality: worker reproduction. Am. Nat. 182, 421–438. (doi:10.1086/671994). Crossref, PubMed, ISI, Google Scholar Next Article VIEW FULL TEXT DOWNLOAD PDF FiguresRelatedReferencesDetailsCited byHruschka D, Munira S and Jesmin K (2023) Starting from scratch in a patrilocal society: how women build networks after marriage in rural Bangladesh, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 378:1868, Online publication date: 16-Jan-2023. Curry O, Alfano M, Brandt M and Pelican C (2021) Moral Molecules: Morality as a Combinatorial System, Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 10.1007/s13164-021-00540-x, 13:4, (1039-1058), Online publication date: 1-Dec-2022. Rantala M and Luoto S (2022) Evolutionary Perspectives on Depression Evolutionary Psychiatry, 10.1017/9781009030564.010, (117-133) Brown R, Gruijters S, Kotz S and Gutchess A (2022) Prediction in the Aging Brain: Merging Cognitive, Neurological, and Evolutionary Perspectives, The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, 10.1093/geronb/gbac062, 77:9, (1580-1591), Online publication date: 1-Sep-2022. Belcher L, Madgwick P, Kuwana S, Stewart B, Thompson C and Wolf J (2022) Developmental constraints enforce altruism and avert the tragedy of the commons in a social microbe, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 10.1073/pnas.2111233119, 119:29, Online publication date: 19-Jul-2022. Koliofotis V and Verreault-Julien P (2022) Hamilton's rule: A non-causal explanation?, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 10.1016/j.shpsa.2021.11.008, 92, (109-118), Online publication date: 1-Apr-2022. Forget M, Adiba S and De Monte S (2021) Social conflicts in Dictyostelium discoideum : a matter of scales, Peer Community Journal, 10.24072/pcjournal.39, 1 Lessard S, Li C, Zheng X and Tao Y (2021) Inclusive fitness and Hamilton's rule in a stochastic environment, Theoretical Population Biology, 10.1016/j.tpb.2021.09.007, 142, (91-99), Online publication date: 1-Dec-2021. Jaffro E and Paternotte C (2021) Unexplained cooperation, European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 10.1007/s13194-021-00386-1, 11:3, Online publication date: 1-Sep-2021. Stencel A and Suárez J (2021) Do Somatic Cells Really Sacrifice Themselves? Why an Appeal to Coercion May be a Helpful Strategy in Explaining the Evolution of Multicellularity, Biological Theory, 10.1007/s13752-021-00376-9, 16:2, (102-113), Online publication date: 1-Jun-2021. Rusch H and Gavrilets S (2020) The logic of animal intergroup conflict: A review, Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 10.1016/j.jebo.2017.05.004, 178, (1014-1030), Online publication date: 1-Oct-2020. Power E and Ready E (2019) Cooperation beyond consanguinity: post-marital residence, delineations of kin and social support among South Indian Tamils, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 374:1780, Online publication date: 2-Sep-2019. Huneman P (2019) Revisiting darwinian teleology: A case for inclusive fitness as design explanation, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 10.1016/j.shpsc.2019.101188, 76, (101188), Online publication date: 1-Aug-2019. Curry O, Mullins D and Whitehouse H (2019) Is It Good to Cooperate? Testing the Theory of Morality-as-Cooperation in 60 Societies, Current Anthropology, 10.1086/701478, 60:1, (47-69), Online publication date: 2-Feb-2019. Humphreys R and Ruxton G (2019) Adaptive suicide: is a kin-selected driver of fatal behaviours likely?, Biology Letters, 15:2, Online publication date: 1-Feb-2019. Curry O, Jones Chesters M and Van Lissa C (2019) Mapping morality with a compass: Testing the theory of 'morality-as-cooperation' with a new questionnaire, Journal of Research in Personality, 10.1016/j.jrp.2018.10.008, 78, (106-124), Online publication date: 1-Feb-2019. Hitchcock T and Gardner A (2019) Parent-of-origin specific gene expression and dispersal, Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 10.1016/j.cobeha.2018.06.007, 25, (36-43), Online publication date: 1-Feb-2019. Cook C and Pinter-Wollman N (2019) Social Behavior and Interactions Encyclopedia of Ecology, 10.1016/B978-0-12-409548-9.10554-8, (319-327), . Ivanko E (2018) Is evolution always "egolution" : Discussion of evolutionary efficiency of altruistic energy exchange, Ecological Complexity, 10.1016/j.ecocom.2018.02.001, 34, (1-8), Online publication date: 1-May-2018. Rantala M, Luoto S, Krams I and Karlsson H (2018) Depression subtyping based on evolutionary psychiatry: Proximate mechanisms and ultimate functions, Brain, Behavior, and Immunity, 10.1016/j.bbi.2017.10.012, 69, (603-617), Online publication date: 1-Mar-2018. Bryson J (2018) Patiency is not a virtue: the design of intelligent systems and systems of ethics, Ethics and Information Technology, 10.1007/s10676-018-9448-6, 20:1, (15-26), Online publication date: 1-Mar-2018. Rusch H (2018) Ancestral kinship patterns substantially reduce the negative effect of increasing group size on incentives for public goods provision, Journal of Economic Psychology, 10.1016/j.joep.2017.12.002, 64, (105-115), Online publication date: 1-Feb-2018. Calmettes G and Weiss J (2017) The emergence of egalitarianism in a model of early human societies, Heliyon, 10.1016/j.heliyon.2017.e00451, 3:11, (e00451), Online publication date: 1-Nov-2017. Ågren J, Williamson R, Campitelli B and Wheeler J (2016) Greenbeards in yeast: an undergraduate laboratory exercise to teach the genetics of cooperation, Journal of Biological Education, 10.1080/00219266.2016.1217903, 51:3, (228-236), Online publication date: 3-Jul-2017. Łukasiewicz A, Szubert-Kruszyńska A and Radwan J (2017) Kin selection promotes female productivity and cooperation between the sexes, Science Advances, 10.1126/sciadv.1602262, 3:3, Online publication date: 3-Mar-2017. Welch J (2016) What's wrong with evolutionary biology?, Biology & Philosophy, 10.1007/s10539-016-9557-8, 32:2, (263-279), Online publication date: 1-Mar-2017. Alcock J (2017) The Behavioral Sciences and Sociobiology: A Darwinian Approach The Darwinian Tradition in Context, 10.1007/978-3-319-69123-7_3, (37-59), . Boomsma J (2016) Fifty years of illumination about the natural levels of adaptation, Current Biology, 10.1016/j.cub.2016.11.034, 26:24, (R1250-R1255), Online publication date: 1-Dec-2016. Coco E (2016) William D. Hamilton's Brazilian lectures and his unpublished model regarding Wynne-Edwards's idea of natural selection. With a note on 'pluralism' and different philosophical approaches to evolution, History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences, 10.1007/s40656-016-0125-y, 38:4, Online publication date: 1-Dec-2016. Duthie A, Lee A and Reid J (2016) Inbreeding parents should invest more resources in fewer offspring, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 283:1843, Online publication date: 30-Nov-2016. Muggleton N and Fincher C (2016) The Effects of Disease Vulnerability on Preferences for Self-Similar Scent, Evolutionary Psychological Science, 10.1007/s40806-016-0043-y, 2:2, (129-139), Online publication date: 1-Jun-2016. Korb J and Heinze J (2016) Major Hurdles for the Evolution of Sociality, Annual Review of Entomology, 10.1146/annurev-ento-010715-023711, 61:1, (297-316), Online publication date: 11-Mar-2016. Loewe L (2016) Systems in Evolutionary Systems Biology Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Biology, 10.1016/B978-0-12-800049-6.00184-0, (297-318), . Pear J (2016) Behavior Modification Encyclopedia of Global Bioethics, 10.1007/978-3-319-09483-0_36, (227-235), . Koenig W and Walters E (2015) Temporal variability and cooperative breeding: testing the bet-hedging hypothesis in the acorn woodpecker, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 282:1816, Online publication date: 7-Oct-2015. Lehmann L and Rosenberg N (2015) Hamilton's rule: Game theory meets coalescent theory, Theoretical Population Biology, 10.1016/j.tpb.2015.05.001, 103, (1), Online publication date: 1-Aug-2015. Schmidt J, Kosztolányi A, Tökölyi J, Hugyecz B, Illés I, Király R and Barta Z (2015) Reproductive asynchrony and infanticide in house mice breeding communally, Animal Behaviour, 10.1016/j.anbehav.2014.12.015, 101, (201-211), Online publication date: 1-Mar-2015. Partridge L (2015) Editorial 2015, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 370:1659, Online publication date: 5-Jan-2015. Bryson J (2015) Artificial Intelligence and Pro-Social Behaviour Collective Agency and Cooperation in Natural and Artificial Systems, 10.1007/978-3-319-15515-9_15, (281-306), . Pear J (2015) Behavior Modification Encyclopedia of Global Bioethics, 10.1007/978-3-319-05544-2_36-1, (1-9), . Rusch H (2014) The evolutionary interplay of intergroup conflict and altruism in humans: a review of parochial altruism theory and prospects for its extension, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 281:1794, Online publication date: 7-Nov-2014. This Issue19 May 2014Volume 369Issue 1642Theme Issue 'Inclusive fitness: 50 years on' compiled and edited by Andy Gardner and Stuart A. West Article InformationDOI:https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2013.0356PubMed:24686928Published by:Royal SocietyPrint ISSN:0962-8436Online ISSN:1471-2970History: Published online19/05/2014Published in print19/05/2014 License:© 2014 The Author(s) Published by the Royal Society. All rights reserved. Citations and impact Keywordskin selectionaltruismnatural selectiontheorysocial evolutionadaptation Subjectsbehaviourecologyevolutiongenetics health and disease and epidemiologytheoretical biology
Referência(s)