Back

Unilateral cross-feeding constrains adaptive evolution, even in the producer without direct fitness effects.

Al-Tameemi, Z.; Rosazza, T.; Rodriguez-Verdugo, A.

2026-04-01 evolutionary biology
10.64898/2026.03.31.715640 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Cross-feeding interactions are pervasive in microbial communities and profoundly shape community structure, stability, and function. While previous studies have explored how cross-feeding affects evolvability, this work has predominantly focused on bidirectional mutualistic interactions in engineered auxotrophic systems where both partners reciprocally exchange essential metabolites. However, most metabolic interactions in natural microbial communities are unidirectional, with organisms feeding on the metabolic waste products of other species. Our study addresses this gap by examining how a unidirectional cross-feeding interaction affects the evolutionary dynamics of both the producer (Acinetobacter johnsonii) and consumer (Pseudomonas putida) over 800 generations of experimental evolution. We found that co-culture constrained adaptive evolution in both species. Co-cultures exhibited lower {pi}N/{pi}S ratios (0.75 for P. putida; 1.04 for A. johnsonii) than monocultures (1.44 and 2.02, respectively) indicating stronger purifying selection against nonsynonymous mutations in the community context. Lineage tracking through whole genome sequencing of populations and clones revealed greater lineage diversity and complexity in monocultures, with more mutations showing significant parallelism across replicate populations. Additionally, P. putida evolved increased dependence on its partner; co-culture-evolved P. putida grew significantly worse than its ancestor when A. johnsonii was removed. These findings demonstrate that ecological interactions fundamentally reshape fitness landscapes and constrain adaptive evolution even when fitness benefits are unidirectional, with implications for understanding microbial community stability and predicting evolutionary dynamics in complex communities.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
The ISME Journal
194 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
14.4%
2
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2130 papers in training set
Top 4%
12.1%
3
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 27%
6.7%
4
mBio
750 papers in training set
Top 2%
6.7%
5
Nature Ecology & Evolution
113 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
6.2%
6
Cell Systems
167 papers in training set
Top 2%
6.2%
50% of probability mass above
7
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 18%
4.8%
8
mSystems
361 papers in training set
Top 3%
3.9%
9
PLOS Biology
408 papers in training set
Top 3%
3.8%
10
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 10%
3.5%
11
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
341 papers in training set
Top 3%
3.0%
12
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
53 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.6%
13
Current Biology
596 papers in training set
Top 9%
1.7%
14
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B
51 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.7%
15
Evolution Letters
71 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.6%
16
Science Advances
1098 papers in training set
Top 19%
1.6%
17
mSphere
281 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.3%
18
ISME Communications
103 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
19
PLOS Pathogens
721 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.9%
20
npj Biofilms and Microbiomes
56 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
21
Molecular Ecology
304 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
22
Nature Microbiology
133 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
23
Microbiome
139 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.9%
24
PLOS Genetics
756 papers in training set
Top 14%
0.8%
25
Molecular Biology and Evolution
488 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.7%
26
iScience
1063 papers in training set
Top 33%
0.7%
27
Evolution
199 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%