Bulletin of Mathematical Biology

, Volume 62, Issue 4, pp 759–774 | Cite as

Individual-and population-based diversity in restriction-modification systems

  • Ludo Pagie
  • Paulien Hogeweg
Article

Abstract

Restriction-modification (RM) systems are cognate gene complexes that code for an endonuclease and a methylase. They are often thought to have developed in bacteria as protection against invading genetic material, e.g., phage DNA. The high diversity of RM systems, as observed in nature, is often ascribed to the coevolution of RM systems (which ‘invent’ novel types) and phages. However, the extent to which phages are insensitive to RM systems casts doubts on the effectiveness of RM systems as protection against infection and thereby on the reason for the diversity of RM systems. We present an eco-evolutionary model in order to study the evolution of the diversity of RM systems. The model predicts that in general diversity of RM systems is high. More importantly, the diversity of the RM systems is expressed either at the individual level or at the population level. In the first case all individuals carry RM systems of all sequence specificities, whereas in the second case they carry only one RM system or no RM systems at all. Nevertheless, in the second case the same number of sequence specificities are present in the population.

Keywords

Methylation Pattern Host Bacterium Phage Infection Bacterium Population Individual Bacterium 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Barcus, V. A. and N. E. Murray (1995). Barriers to recombination: restriction, in Population Genetics of Bacteria, S. Baumberg, J. P. W. Young, S. R. Saunders and E. M. H. Wellington (Eds), Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, pp. 31–58.Google Scholar
  2. Bickle, T. A. and D. H. Kruger (1993). Biology of DNA restriction. Microbiol. Rev. 57, 434–450.Google Scholar
  3. Frank, S. A. (1994). Polymorphism of bacterial restriction-modification systems: the advantage of diversity. Evolution 48, 1470–1477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Hantula, J., A. Kurki, P. Vuoriranta and D. H. Bamford (1991). Ecology of bacteriophages infecting activated sludge bacteria. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 57, 2147–2151.Google Scholar
  5. Havelaar, A. H., K. Furuse and W. M. Hogeboom (1986). Bacteriophages and indicator bacteria in human and animal faeces. J. Appl. Bacteriol. 60, 255–262.Google Scholar
  6. Johansen, A. (1996). A simple model of recurrent epidemics. J. Theor. Biol. 178, 45–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Korona, R., B. Korona and B. R. Levin (1993). Sensitivity of naturally occurring coliphages to type I and type II restriction and modification. J. Gen. Microbiol. 139, 1283–1290.Google Scholar
  8. Korona, R. and B. R. Levin (1993). Phage-mediated selection and the evolution and maintenance of restriction-modification. Evolution 47, 556–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kruger, D. H. and T. A. Bickle (1983). Bacteriophage survival: multiple mechanisms for avoiding the deoxyribonucleic acid restriction systems of their hosts. Microbiol. Rev. 47, 345–360.Google Scholar
  10. Kulakauskas, S., A. Lubys and S. D. Ehrlich (1995). DNA restriction-modification systems mediate plasmid maintenance. J. Bacteriol. 177, 3451–3454.Google Scholar
  11. Levin, B. R. (1988). Frequency-dependent selection in bacterial populations. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B. Biol. Sci. 319, 459–472.Google Scholar
  12. Monod, J. A. (1992). Theoretical implications for the evolution of postsegregational killing by bacterial plasmids. Am. Naturalist 139, 677–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Naito, T., K. Kusano and I. Kobayashi (1995). Selfish behavior of restriction-modification systems [see comments]. Science 267, 897–899.Google Scholar
  14. O’Neill, M., A. Chen and N. E. Murray (1997). The restriction-modification genes of Escherichia coli K-12 may not be selfish: they do not resist loss and are readily replaced by alleles conferring different specificities. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 94, 14596–14601.Google Scholar
  15. Pagie, L. and P. Hogeweg (1999). Colicin diversity: a result of eco-evolutionary dynamics. J. Theor. Biol. 196, 251–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Proctor, L. M. and J. A. Furhman (1990). Viral mortality of marine bacteria and cyanobacteria. Nature 343, 60–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Redaschi, N. and T. A. Bickle (1996). Dna restriction and modification systems, in Escherichia Coli and Salmonella: Cellular and Molecular Biology, 2nd edn, Vol. 1, Chap. 52, F. C. Neidhardt (Ed.), Washington, DC: American Society for Microbiology, pp. 773–781.Google Scholar
  18. Savill, N. J., P. Rohani and P. Hogeweg (1997). Self-reinforcing spatial patterns enslave evolution in a host-parasitoid system [published erratum appears in J. Theor. Biol. (1997) Oct 21; 188: 525–526]. J. Theor. Biol. 188, 11–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Sharp, P. M. (1986). Molecular evolution of bacteriophages: evidence of selection against the recognition sites of host restriction enzymes. Mol. Biol. Evol. 3, 75–83.Google Scholar
  20. Wilson, G. G. and N. E. Murray (1991). Restriction and modification systems. Ann. Rev. Genet. 25, 585–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society for Mathematical Biology 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ludo Pagie
    • 1
  • Paulien Hogeweg
    • 1
  1. 1.Bioinformatics groupUtrecht UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations