Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 97 references

Asymmetric Interactions Shape Survival During Population Range Expansions

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that the survival probability of a new mutation in an expanding population is governed by a single reaction-diffusion ODE built from the initial wild-type wave profile and the mutant's asymmetric payoffs, and that this…

desk verdict Genuinely new framework, but the central survival ODE has a sign error in the diffusion term that undermines the claimed simulation agreement. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.10937 v1 pith:GUBRZX7E submitted 2024-12-14 q-bio.PE physics.bio-ph

Jason M. Gray , Rowan J. Barker-Clarke , Jacob G. Scott , Michael Hinczewski This is my paper · ORCID
classification q-bio.PEphysics.bio-ph
keywords rangeexpansionsurvivalprobabilityasymmetricgamesgenesurfingreaction-diffusionequationstochasticsimulationsecologicalinteractionsmutantestablishment
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper asks where a new mutation must appear in an expanding population to survive, when the mutant and wild-type cells affect each other's growth asymmetrically. Its central claim is that the survival probability across the wave can be described by a single ordinary differential equation that combines the initial density profile of the wave, the mutant's ecological payoffs, diffusion, and wave motion. The equation reproduces stochastic simulations whenever the mutant's net interaction with wild-types is positive, covering cooperation, exploitation, and commensalism. If correct, it gives a predictive tool: from the types of interactions between cells, one can compute the spatial map of where new mutants are likely to establish, or invert a measured survival map to infer the interactions.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the survival-probability ODE, Eq. (23): $$r_m\langle v\rangle_{\rm init}u + (P^M_{WM}+P^M_{MW})\langle w\rangle_{\rm init}u - s_{w,\rm front}\frac{du}{dx} - \frac{$d^{2}$u}{$dx^{2}$} - [\phi_+(P^M_{VM})+\phi_+(P^M_{MV})]\langle v\rangle_{\rm init}$u^{2}$ - [\phi_+(P^M_{WM})+\phi_+(P^M_{MW})]\langle w\rangle_{\rm init}$u^{2}$ = 0.$$ Here $\phi_+(x)$ returns $x$ for $x\ge 0$ and $0$ otherwise. The equation takes the mutant's payoff interactions with wild-types and vacancies, the initial wild-type density profile $\langle w\rangle_{\rm init}$, the stochastic Fisher wave speed $s_{w,\rm front}$, and a quadratic term that prevents counting two mutants as two independent survivors. Solving it with Moran-process boundary conditions yields the spatial survival probability $u(x)$.

What would settle it

Run the stochastic model with a balanced asymmetric game ($P^M_{WM}=-1$, $P^M_{MW}=1$) at high wild-type growth rate: Eq. (23) measurably overpredicts bulk survival. A sharper refutation would be an engineered microbial range expansion with known asymmetric interactions; if measured survival profiles deviate from Eq. (23) even where $u(-\infty)/u(\infty)\ge 1$, the central claim is wrong.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that survival of a newly introduced mutant in an expanding population wave is not a black box: the spatial probability $u(x)$ of survival, whether by surfing on the front or abiding in the bulk, is the solution of an ODE whose coefficients are the mutant's payoff tensor components, the initial wild-type wave profile, and the wave speed. The model is built by taking the reaction-diffusion equation for mutant fraction, assuming the environment seen by a newborn mutant is frozen at its initial profile, moving to the wave's comoving frame, and adding a nonlinear $u^2$ term to fix the boundary behavior. The paper shows that solutions of this ODE agree with Gillespie simulations for three asymmetric games spanning the payoff phase space, whenever the mutant's net payoff from wild-type interactions is nonnegative; this covers cooperation, exploitation, and commensalism. In the balanced regime with equal beneficial and detrimental interactions, the model overpredicts survival in the bulk because establishment is slow and the frozen-environment assumption fails. The practical upshot is a two-way tool: interaction types predict a spatial survival map, and a measured survival map can be used to infer the interactions.

Load-bearing premise

A mutation's fate is decided almost immediately, before the expanding wave has time to change the local density of wild-types and empty space around it.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Given the two asymmetric payoff components $P^M_{WM}$ and $P^M_{MW}$ plus intrinsic growth rates, the model outputs the full spatial survival profile $u(x)$ without running stochastic simulations.
  • In the positive-payoff regime, survival is highest deep in the bulk, so mutations that gain from wild-type interactions are most likely to establish inside the population rather than at the leading edge.
  • The same framework separates survival into surfing and abiding components, showing that slow-moving wild-type waves favor surfing while fast waves leave established mutants behind in the bulk.
  • Because the bulk-to-front boundary ratio $u(-\infty)/u(\infty)$ controls accuracy, the model's predictive window is exactly the regime where a mutant is intrinsically less fit but receives a net benefit from wild-type interactions.
  • The model can be inverted: a measured spatial survival distribution constrains the types of ecological interactions that produced it.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the frozen-environment approximation extends to two dimensions, the same ODE could map likely emergence sites of drug-resistant mutants in tumors and biofilms; the paper notes the one-dimensional restriction but not the size of the two-dimensional error.
  • In the balanced-game regime where the model errs, the discrepancy between predicted and simulated survival encodes the establishment time, potentially turning model failure into a way to measure how slowly resistance mutations gain a foothold.
  • Adding a drug or toxin gradient to the payoff tensor, an extension the paper sketches, would let the framework predict how therapy shifts the spatial origin of resistance; this is directly testable in antibiotic gradient experiments.
  • The model implies that a fitness-costly resistance mutation can persist in the bulk if wild-type interactions offset the cost, which would make the spatial distribution of pre-existing resistance depend strongly on the ecology of the tumor or biofilm.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies the survival probability of a mutant introduced at position x in an expanding wild-type population, with asymmetric ecological interactions between wild types, mutants, and vacancies. The authors simulate a stochastic lattice model with a Gillespie algorithm, tracking surfing and abiding contributions to survival, and they derive a nonlinear ODE (Eq. 23) for the survival probability u(x) using a backward-Kolmogorov-style heuristic with a short-time approximation, a comoving frame, and a phenomenological u^2 term whose coefficient is fixed by branching-process boundary conditions. They compare numerical solutions of this ODE with simulations for three payoff games and report visual agreement for games with positive or mixed net payoff, while acknowledging disagreement for the balanced game where establishment is slow.

Significance. If the model is correct, it provides a predictive, essentially parameter-free tool for the spatially dependent establishment probability of mutants in expanding populations, extending gene-surfing theory to asymmetric ecological interactions. The paper's strengths include the explicit stochastic reaction scheme, the analytic boundary conditions from the Moran/branching process, the use of the Brunet-Derrida wave speed as an input, and the fact that the survival ODE is not fitted to the mutant survival data. These features make the approach attractive for applications in microbial range expansions and spatially structured drug resistance. However, the central derivation contains a load-bearing algebraic sign error in the diffusion term, and the comparison with simulations is only visual, so the predictive claim cannot be accepted in its current form.

major comments (2)
  1. [Appendix B, Eqs. (B6)-(B8) and Eq. (23)] The integration by parts that produces the diffusion term has a sign error. Starting from 0 = ∫ u[βm + D m'']dx, standard integration by parts with vanishing boundary terms gives 0 = ∫ m[βu + D u'']dx, with a plus sign on the diffusion term. The intermediate expression in Eq. (B6) contains an extra term −2D∫(dm/dx)(du/dx)dx; this term is not independent, since for compactly supported m one has ∫(dm/dx)(du/dx)dx = −∫m u''dx. Dropping that term therefore changes +D u'' into −D u'' in Eq. (B8) and in the final model Eq. (23). The correct backward equation in the comoving frame should read β(x)u − s_w,front du/dx + D d²u/dx² − C(x)u² = 0, with C(x) the positive-payoff coefficient. Because Eq. (23) is exactly the equation whose numerical solutions are plotted against simulations in Fig. 4, the authors must correct this sign, state explicitly which sign was used in the numerical integration, and redo the comparison. The qualitative consequence noted in the stress test is real: with the printed sign, the bulk fixed point for the mixed game (Fig. 4c,d) has the wrong stability structure, so the reported agreement is not a reliable check of the derivation.
  2. [Section V, Fig. 4] The central claim of agreement between model and simulations rests entirely on visual overlay of scatter points and curves. The simulation estimates from 1000 trajectories should carry binomial error bars, and the authors should report a quantitative discrepancy measure (for example, maximum absolute or relative deviation per panel). This is especially important because the authors explicitly propose the criterion u(−∞)/u(∞) ≥ 1 to separate regimes of agreement and disagreement; that criterion should be tested against the data rather than asserted from inspection. Without such a measure, the acknowledged failure in Fig. 4e,f and the claimed success in Fig. 4a–d cannot be sharply distinguished, particularly once the sign error in Eq. (23) is corrected.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section II, Eq. (1)] The payoff matrix displayed in Eq. (1) repeats 'PBA' in the second row; the lower-right entry should be PBB.
  2. [Section II, Eq. (7)] The reaction scheme in Eq. (7) uses |P^M_WM| as the reaction rate while the stoichiometry depends on sgn(P^W_WM). The authors should clarify that the magnitudes of the two payoff entries for a given interaction are equal (or explain how a single Gillespie rate is assigned when they differ), since otherwise the same physical event is assigned two different propensities in the algorithm.
  3. [Section IV, Eq. (22)] The notation 'Ln(C√rw)2' is confusing; it should be written as ln²(C√r_w), and the argument should be dimensionless (presumably C√r_w with C the carrying capacity).
  4. [Appendix A and Appendix B] There are several typographical errors, for example 'adjascent' (Appendix A) and 'apposed' (Appendix B, in 'as apposed to asymmetric game interactions'). These should be corrected.
  5. [Section IV, Eqs. (15)-(17)] The replacement of the transition density p(x,t|ξ,τ) by the mutant fraction m(x,t) is a significant heuristic step that is stated rather than derived. The text does flag it as an assumption, but it would help readers to see explicitly where the normalization of p is lost and why the boundary terms in the integration by parts are still assumed to vanish after this replacement.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the survival ODE is not fitted to survival data; the wild-type wave is an independent input, payoff parameters and wave speed are fixed, and the u² term is an acknowledged phenomenological closure.

full rationale

The central equation (23) is derived from the mutant reaction-diffusion equation (14) by replacing the time-dependent wild-type and vacancy densities with their initial profiles ⟨w⟩_init(x) and ⟨v⟩_init(x) (Sec. IV, Eq. 17). Those profiles come from wild-type-only simulations and are generated independently of mutant survival, so using them as environmental input is not circular. The payoff magnitudes, intrinsic growth rates, and Brunet-Derrida wave speed (Eq. 22) are fixed inputs, not fitted to the survival curves. The u² term is explicitly labeled "phenomenological" and borrowed from Lehe et al. [21], an independent prior work; its coefficient is fixed by requiring the ODE to reproduce the branching-process boundary conditions (Appendix B3, Eqs. B20–B21), not by regression on the simulated survival data. The boundary values u(±∞) themselves are computed from the payoff matrix via a Moran/branching-process formula (Eq. B15), so the spatial variation of u(x) across the front remains a genuine model output. The paper also reports and discusses a regime where the model fails (P^M_WM = −1, P^M_MW = 1) and attributes the failure to the short-time assumption (Sec. V), which is an honest limitation rather than a concealed fit. No load-bearing self-citation chain exists: [21], [71], and [72] are external works. A suspected algebraic sign error in the Appendix B integration by parts, if confirmed, would be a correctness defect, not a circularity, and does not change this score.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model's payoff magnitudes, intrinsic growth rates, carrying capacity, and diffusion constant are inputs, not fitted. The u² term's coefficient is fixed by boundary-condition matching, and the wave-speed formula is taken from Brunet-Derrida, so there are no numbers fitted to the mutant-survival data. The main cost is in assumptions, listed above.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Zero-sum finite carrying capacity: for any interaction pair I,J, P^K_IJ = -P^K_JI, so one division requires one death.
    Introduced in Section II around Eq. (6)-(13): 'In order for a cell to divide, there must be space for it to divide. For populations with a finite carrying capacity (C), we then have P^K_IJ = -P^K_JI.' This restricts interactions to competitive replacement within demes and excludes truly density-independent growth.
  • ad hoc to paper Short-time approximation: survival probability is determined by the initial wild-type and vacancy profiles <w>_init, <v>_init.
    Section IV after Eq. (16): 'our second assumption is that the survival probability of a mutant is highly dependent on its ability to overcome the strong stochastic fluctuations early on. This means that we may approximate the survival probability using the initial conditions of the system.' This is the load-bearing premise; the paper itself notes it breaks down for balanced or harmful games.
  • ad hoc to paper Phenomenological u^2 term in the survival ODE, anchored by boundary-condition matching.
    Section IV before Eq. (23): 'we require a phenomenological term of order u^2 that accounts for the possibility of two mutants existing at short time scales, and additionally fixes the boundary conditions.' Appendix B3 derives its coefficient by requiring F(x,u) to match the branching-process boundary values, not from first principles.
  • ad hoc to paper Integration-by-parts simplifications: boundary terms vanish and the cross term integral dm/dx * du/dx dx is zero because m is symmetric and u is approximately linear at small times.
    Appendix B, around Eq. (B6): 'if we assume that the mutant distribution is symmetric for small times, and that the survival probability is approximately linear around the nonzero region of the mutant distribution at small times.' Not justified for general payoff regimes.
  • domain assumption Wave speed of the wild-type front is given by the Brunet-Derrida leading-order formula s = 2 sqrt(r_w)(1 - pi^2/(2 (ln(C sqrt(r_w)))^2)).
    Section IV Eq. (22), citing [71]. This approximates the stochastic Fisher wave speed used for the comoving frame; deviations for strongly pushed or pulled waves are not assessed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Asymmetric Interactions Shape Survival During Population Range Expansions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GUBRZX7E

@misc{pith2026241210937,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Asymmetric Interactions Shape Survival During Population Range Expansions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GUBRZX7E}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.10937}
}
read the original abstract

An organism that is newly introduced into an existing population has a survival probability that is dependent on both the population density of its environment and the competition it experiences with the members of that population. Expanding populations naturally form regions of high and low density, and simultaneously experience ecological interactions both internally and at the boundary of their range. For this reason, systems of expanding populations are ideal for studying the combination of density and ecological effects. Conservation ecologists have been studying the ability of an invasive species to establish for some time, attributing success to both ecological and spatial factors. Similar behaviors have been observed in spatially structured cell populations, such as those found in cancerous tumors and bacterial biofilms. In these scenarios, novel organisms may be the introduction of a new mutation or bacterial species with some form of drug resistance, leading to the possibility of treatment failure. In order to gain insight into the relationship between population density and ecological interactions, we study an expanding population of interacting wild-type cells and mutant cells. We simulate these interactions in time and study the spatially dependent probability for a mutant to survive or to take over the front of the population wave (gene surfing). Additionally, we develop a mathematical model that describes this survival probability and find agreement when the payoff for the mutant is positive (corresponding to cooperation, exploitation, or commensalism). By knowing the types of interactions, our model provides insight into the spatial distribution of survival probability. Conversely, given a spatial distribution of survival probabilities, our model provides insight into the types of interactions that were involved to generate it.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.10937 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: A branching process depicting the total number of mutants ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

97 extracted references · 78 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The effect of population structure on the rate of evolution

    Marcus Frean, Paul B Rainey, and Arne Traulsen. The effect of population structure on the rate of evolution. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences , 280(1762):20130211, 2013

    2013

  2. [2]

    The replica- tor equation on graphs

    Hisashi Ohtsuki and Martin A Nowak. The replica- tor equation on graphs. Journal of theoretical biology , 243(1):86–97, 2006

    2006

  3. [3]

    Toward a universal model for spatially structured popu- lations

    Lo ¨ ıc Marrec, Irene Lamberti, and Anne-Florence Bitbol. Toward a universal model for spatially structured popu- lations. Physical review letters , 127(21):218102, 2021

    2021

  4. [4]

    Fixation probabil- ities in network structured meta-populations

    Sedigheh Yagoobi and Arne Traulsen. Fixation probabil- ities in network structured meta-populations. Scientific Reports, 11(1):17979, 2021

    2021

  5. [5]

    Edge effects in game-theoretic dynamics of spa- tially structured tumours

    Artem Kaznatcheev, Jacob G Scott, and David Bas- anta. Edge effects in game-theoretic dynamics of spa- tially structured tumours. Journal of The Royal Society Interface, 12(108):20150154, 2015

    2015

  6. [6]

    Takeover times for a simple model of network infection

    Bertrand Ottino-L¨ offler, Jacob G Scott, and Steven H Strogatz. Takeover times for a simple model of network infection. Physical Review E , 96(1):012313, 2017

    2017

  7. [7]

    Suppressors of fix- ation can increase average fitness beyond amplifiers of selection

    Nikhil Sharma and Arne Traulsen. Suppressors of fix- ation can increase average fitness beyond amplifiers of selection. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sci- ences, 119(37):e2205424119, 2022

    2022

  8. [8]

    Explicit solu- tions of fisher’s equation for a special wave speed

    Mark J Ablowitz and Anthony Zeppetella. Explicit solu- tions of fisher’s equation for a special wave speed. Bul- letin of Mathematical Biology , 41(6):835–840, 1979

    1979

Show all 97 references
  1. [9]

    Random dispersal in theoretical populations

    John Gordon Skellam. Random dispersal in theoretical populations. Biometrika, 38(1/2):196–218, 1951

    1951

  2. [10]

    Biological invasions: theory and practice

    Nanako Shigesada and Kohkichi Kawasaki. Biological invasions: theory and practice . Oxford University Press, UK, 1997

    1997

  3. [11]

    Dispersal data and the spread of invading organisms

    Mark Kot, Mark A Lewis, and Pauline van den Driess- che. Dispersal data and the spread of invading organisms. Ecology, 77(7):2027–2042, 1996

    2027

  4. [12]

    Fisher waves in the strong noise limit

    Oskar Hallatschek and Kirill S Korolev. Fisher waves in the strong noise limit. Physical review letters , 103(10):108103, 2009

    2009

  5. [13]

    Effect of microscopic noise on front propagation

    ´Eric Brunet and Bernard Derrida. Effect of microscopic noise on front propagation. Journal of Statistical Physics, 103:269–282, 2001

    2001

  6. [14]

    Acceleration of evolutionary spread by long-range dispersal

    Oskar Hallatschek and Daniel S Fisher. Acceleration of evolutionary spread by long-range dispersal. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 111(46):E4911– E4919, 2014

    2014

  7. [15]

    Gene surfing in expanding populations

    Oskar Hallatschek and David R Nelson. Gene surfing in expanding populations. Theoretical population biology , 73(1):158–170, 2008

    2008

  8. [16]

    Surfing during popu- lation expansions promotes genetic revolutions and struc- turation

    Laurent Excoffier and Nicolas Ray. Surfing during popu- lation expansions promotes genetic revolutions and struc- turation. Trends in ecology & evolution , 23(7):347–351, 2008

    2008

  9. [17]

    Mutations arising in the wave front of an expanding population

    Christopher A Edmonds, Anita S Lillie, and L Luca Cavalli-Sforza. Mutations arising in the wave front of an expanding population. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 101(4):975–979, 2004

    2004

  10. [18]

    Excess of mutational jack- pot events in expanding populations revealed by spa- tial luria–delbr¨ uck experiments.Nature communications, 7(1):12760, 2016

    Diana Fusco, Matti Gralka, Jona Kayser, Alex Ander- son, and Oskar Hallatschek. Excess of mutational jack- pot events in expanding populations revealed by spa- tial luria–delbr¨ uck experiments.Nature communications, 7(1):12760, 2016

    2016

  11. [19]

    The impact of long-range dispersal on gene surfing

    Jayson Paulose and Oskar Hallatschek. The impact of long-range dispersal on gene surfing. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 117(14):7584–7593, 2020

    2020

  12. [20]

    Ge- netic consequences of range expansions

    Laurent Excoffier, Matthieu Foll, and R´ emy J Petit. Ge- netic consequences of range expansions. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics , 40(1):481–501, 2009

    2009

  13. [21]

    The rate of beneficial mutations surfing on the wave of a range expansion

    R´ emi Lehe, Oskar Hallatschek, and Luca Peliti. The rate of beneficial mutations surfing on the wave of a range expansion. PLoS computational biology , 8(3):e1002447, 2012

    2012

  14. [22]

    Genetic demixing and evolution in lin- ear stepping stone models

    Kirill S Korolev, Mikkel Avlund, Oskar Hallatschek, and David R Nelson. Genetic demixing and evolution in lin- ear stepping stone models. Reviews of modern physics , 82(2):1691–1718, 2010

    2010

  15. [23]

    Genetic drift at expanding frontiers promotes gene segregation

    Oskar Hallatschek, Pascal Hersen, Sharad Ramanathan, and David R Nelson. Genetic drift at expanding frontiers promotes gene segregation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(50):19926–19930, 2007

    2007

  16. [24]

    Ge- netic drift and selection in many-allele range expansions

    Bryan T Weinstein, Maxim O Lavrentovich, Wolfram M¨ obius, Andrew W Murray, and David R Nelson. Ge- netic drift and selection in many-allele range expansions. PLoS computational biology, 13(12):e1005866, 2017

    2017

  17. [25]

    Evolutionary rescue of re- sistant mutants is governed by a balance between radial expansion and selection in compact populations

    Serhii Aif, Nico Appold, Lucas Kampman, Oskar Hal- latschek, and Jona Kayser. Evolutionary rescue of re- sistant mutants is governed by a balance between radial expansion and selection in compact populations. Nature communications, 13(1):7916, 2022

    2022

  18. [26]

    Collective motion conceals fitness differences in crowded cellular populations

    Jona Kayser, Carl F Schreck, Matti Gralka, Diana Fusco, and Oskar Hallatschek. Collective motion conceals fitness differences in crowded cellular populations. Nature ecol- ogy & evolution , 3(1):125–134, 2019

    2019

  19. [27]

    Studies of sector formation in expanding bacterial colonies

    I Golding, I Cohen, and E Ben-Jacob. Studies of sector formation in expanding bacterial colonies. Europhysics Letters, 48(5):587, 1999

    1999

  20. [28]

    Adjusting the lens of invasion biology to focus on the impacts of climate-driven range shifts

    Piper D Wallingford, Toni Lyn Morelli, Jenica M Allen, Evelyn M Beaury, Dana M Blumenthal, Bethany A Bradley, Jeffrey S Dukes, Regan Early, Emily J Fusco, Deborah E Goldberg, et al. Adjusting the lens of invasion biology to focus on the impacts of climate-driven range shifts. ...

    2020

  21. [29]

    Biodiversity redistribution under climate change: Impacts on ecosystems and human well-being

    Gretta T Pecl, Miguel B Ara´ ujo, Johann D Bell, Julia Blanchard, Timothy C Bonebrake, I-Ching Chen, Timo- thy D Clark, Robert K Colwell, Finn Danielsen, Birgitta Eveng ˚ ard, et al. Biodiversity redistribution under climate change: Impacts on ecosystems and human well-being. ...

    2017

  22. [30]

    Ecological surprise: Concept, synthesis, and so- cial dimensions

    Karen Filbee-Dexter, Jeremy Pittman, Heather A Haig, Steven M Alexander, Celia C Symons, and Matthew J Burke. Ecological surprise: Concept, synthesis, and so- cial dimensions. ecosphere, 8 (12), e02005, 2005

    2005

  23. [31]

    Contribution of climate change to the spatial expansion of west nile virus in eu- rope

    Diana Erazo, Luke Grant, Guillaume Ghisbain, Gio- vanni Marini, Felipe J Col´ on-Gonz´ alez, William Wint, Annapaola Rizzoli, Wim Van Bortel, Chantal BF Vo- gels, Nathan D Grubaugh, et al. Contribution of climate change to the spatial expansion of west nile virus in eu- rope. ...

    2024

  24. [32]

    Usefulness of species traits in predicting range shifts

    Alba Estrada, Ignacio Morales-Castilla, Paul Caplat, and Regan Early. Usefulness of species traits in predicting range shifts. Trends in Ecology & Evolution , 31(3):190– 203, 2016. 13

    2016

  25. [33]

    Species’ traits as predictors of range shifts under contemporary climate change: A review and meta-analysis

    Sarah A MacLean and Steven R Beissinger. Species’ traits as predictors of range shifts under contemporary climate change: A review and meta-analysis. Global Change Biology, 23(10):4094–4105, 2017

    2017

  26. [34]

    Competition and coop- eration in one-dimensional stepping-stone models

    KS Korolev and David R Nelson. Competition and coop- eration in one-dimensional stepping-stone models. Phys- ical Review Letters, 107(8):088103, 2011

    2011

  27. [35]

    Asymmet- ric mutualism in two-and three-dimensional range expan- sions

    Maxim O Lavrentovich and David R Nelson. Asymmet- ric mutualism in two-and three-dimensional range expan- sions. Physical review letters , 112(13):138102, 2014

    2014

  28. [36]

    Emergence of evolutionary driving forces in pattern-forming microbial populations

    Jona Kayser, Carl F Schreck, QinQin Yu, Matti Gralka, and Oskar Hallatschek. Emergence of evolutionary driving forces in pattern-forming microbial populations. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Bio- logical Sciences, 373(1747):20170106, 2018

    2018

  29. [37]

    The adaptive dynamics of altruism in spatially heterogeneous populations

    JEAN-FRANC ¸ OIS LE GALLIARD, Regis Ferri` ere, and Ulf Dieckmann. The adaptive dynamics of altruism in spatially heterogeneous populations. Evolution, 57(1):1– 17, 2003

    2003

  30. [38]

    Mutualisms im- pact species’ range expansion speeds and spatial distri- butions

    Naven Narayanan and Allison K Shaw. Mutualisms im- pact species’ range expansion speeds and spatial distri- butions. Ecology, 105(1):e4171, 2024

    2024

  31. [39]

    Spatial structure, cooperation and competition in biofilms

    Carey D Nadell, Knut Drescher, and Kevin R Fos- ter. Spatial structure, cooperation and competition in biofilms. Nature Reviews Microbiology , 14(9):589–600, 2016

    2016

  32. [40]

    Biofilm formation of multidrug-resistant mrsa strains isolated from different types of human infections

    Vanessa Silva, Luciana Almeida, Vˆ ania Gaio, Nuno Cerca, Vera Manageiro, Manuela Cani¸ ca, Jos´ e L Capelo, Gilberto Igrejas, and Patr ´ ıcia Poeta. Biofilm formation of multidrug-resistant mrsa strains isolated from different types of human infections. Pathogens, 10(8):970, 2021

    2021

  33. [41]

    Building the european an- timicrobial resistance surveillance network in veterinary medicine (ears-vet)

    Rodolphe Mader, Peter Damborg, Jean-Philippe Amat, Bj¨ orn Bengtsson, Cl´ emence Bour´ ely, Els M Broens, Luca Busani, Paloma Crespo-Robledo, Maria-Eleni Filippitzi, William Fitzgerald, et al. Building the european an- timicrobial resistance surveillance network in veterinary ...

    2021

  34. [42]

    From in vitro to in vivo models of bacterial biofilm-related infections

    David Lebeaux, Ashwini Chauhan, Olaya Rendueles, and Christophe Beloin. From in vitro to in vivo models of bacterial biofilm-related infections. Pathogens, 2(2):288– 356, 2013

    2013

  35. [43]

    Higher biofilm for- mation in multidrug-resistant clinical isolates of staphy- lococcus aureus

    An Sung Kwon, Gwang Chul Park, So Yeon Ryu, Dong Hoon Lim, Dong Yoon Lim, Chul Hee Choi, Yoonkyung Park, and Yong Lim. Higher biofilm for- mation in multidrug-resistant clinical isolates of staphy- lococcus aureus. International journal of antimicrobial agents, 32(1):68–72, 2008

    2008

  36. [44]

    Medical device-associated biofilm infections and multidrug-resistant pathogens

    Nesrine Bouhrour, Peter H Nibbering, and Farida Ben- dali. Medical device-associated biofilm infections and multidrug-resistant pathogens. Pathogens, 13(5):393, 2024

    2024

  37. [45]

    Com- bating medical device fouling

    Jacqueline L Harding and Melissa M Reynolds. Com- bating medical device fouling. Trends in biotechnology , 32(3):140–146, 2014

    2014

  38. [46]

    The sociobiology of biofilms

    Carey D Nadell, Joao B Xavier, and Kevin R Foster. The sociobiology of biofilms. FEMS microbiology reviews, 33(1):206–224, 2008

    2008

  39. [47]

    Py- overdine siderophores: from biogenesis to biosignificance

    Paolo Visca, Francesco Imperi, and Iain L Lamont. Py- overdine siderophores: from biogenesis to biosignificance. Trends in microbiology, 15(1):22–30, 2007

    2007

  40. [48]

    Cooperation and competition in pathogenic bacteria

    Ashleigh S Griffin, Stuart A West, and Angus Buckling. Cooperation and competition in pathogenic bacteria. Na- ture, 430(7003):1024–1027, 2004

    2004

  41. [49]

    Cheaters, diffusion and nutrients con- strain decomposition by microbial enzymes in spatially structured environments

    Steven D Allison. Cheaters, diffusion and nutrients con- strain decomposition by microbial enzymes in spatially structured environments. Ecology Letters, 8(6):626–635, 2005

    2005

  42. [50]

    A communal bacterial adhesin anchors biofilm and bystander cells to surfaces

    Cedric Absalon, Katrina Van Dellen, and Paula I Wat- nick. A communal bacterial adhesin anchors biofilm and bystander cells to surfaces. PLoS pathogens , 7(8):e1002210, 2011

    2011

  43. [51]

    A molecular mechanism that stabilizes cooperative secre- tions in pseudomonas aeruginosa

    Joao B Xavier, Wook Kim, and Kevin R Foster. A molecular mechanism that stabilizes cooperative secre- tions in pseudomonas aeruginosa. Molecular microbiol- ogy, 79(1):166–179, 2011

    2011

  44. [52]

    Bacterial wet- ting agents working in colonization of bacteria on surface environments

    Tohey Matsuyama and Yoji Nakagawa. Bacterial wet- ting agents working in colonization of bacteria on surface environments. Colloids and surfaces B: Biointerfaces , 7(5-6):207–214, 1996

    1996

  45. [53]

    Surface topology affects wetting behav- ior of bacillus subtilis biofilms

    Moritz Werb, Carolina Falc´ on Garc ´ ıa, Nina C Bach, Ste- fan Grumbein, Stephan A Sieber, Madeleine Opitz, and Oliver Lieleg. Surface topology affects wetting behav- ior of bacillus subtilis biofilms. npj Biofilms and Micro- biomes, 3(1):11, 2017

    2017

  46. [54]

    The biofilm matrix

    Hans-Curt Flemming and Jost Wingender. The biofilm matrix. Nature reviews microbiology, 8(9):623–633, 2010

    2010

  47. [55]

    The social lives of mi- crobes

    Stuart A West, Stephen P Diggle, Angus Buckling, Andy Gardner, and Ashleigh S Griffin. The social lives of mi- crobes. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. , 38(1):53–77, 2007

    2007

  48. [56]

    Bacterial competition: surviving and thriving in the microbial jungle

    Michael E Hibbing, Clay Fuqua, Matthew R Parsek, and S Brook Peterson. Bacterial competition: surviving and thriving in the microbial jungle. Nature reviews microbi- ology, 8(1):15–25, 2010

    2010

  49. [57]

    Mechanisms of competition in biofilm communities

    Olaya Rendueles and Jean-Marc Ghigo. Mechanisms of competition in biofilm communities. Microbial biofilms , pages 319–342, 2015

    2015

  50. [58]

    Interactions in multispecies biofilms: do they actually matter? Trends in microbiology , 22(2):84–91, 2014

    Mette Burmølle, Dawei Ren, Thomas Bjarnsholt, and Søren J Sørensen. Interactions in multispecies biofilms: do they actually matter? Trends in microbiology , 22(2):84–91, 2014

    2014

  51. [59]

    Interference competition and the coex- istence of two competitors on a single limiting resource

    Richard R Vance. Interference competition and the coex- istence of two competitors on a single limiting resource. Ecology, 65(5):1349–1357, 1984

    1984

  52. [60]

    Interference com- petition and niche theory

    Ted J Case and Michael E Gilpin. Interference com- petition and niche theory. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 71(8):3073–3077, 1974

    1974

  53. [61]

    The evolution of quorum sensing in bac- terial biofilms

    Carey D Nadell, Joao B Xavier, Simon A Levin, and Kevin R Foster. The evolution of quorum sensing in bac- terial biofilms. PLoS biology, 6(1):e14, 2008

    2008

  54. [62]

    Tit-for-tat: type vi secretion system counterattack dur- ing bacterial cell-cell interactions

    Marek Basler, Brian T Ho, and John J Mekalanos. Tit-for-tat: type vi secretion system counterattack dur- ing bacterial cell-cell interactions. Cell, 152(4):884–894, 2013

    2013

  55. [63]

    A view to a kill: the bacterial type vi secretion system

    Brian T Ho, Tao G Dong, and John J Mekalanos. A view to a kill: the bacterial type vi secretion system. Cell host & microbe, 15(1):9–21, 2014

    2014

  56. [64]

    Fibroblasts and alectinib switch the evolutionary games played by non- small cell lung cancer

    Artem Kaznatcheev, Jeffrey Peacock, David Basanta, Andriy Marusyk, and Jacob G Scott. Fibroblasts and alectinib switch the evolutionary games played by non- small cell lung cancer. Nature ecology & evolution , 3(3):450–456, 2019

    2019

  57. [65]

    Measuring competitive exclusion in non–small cell lung cancer

    Nathan Farrokhian, Jeff Maltas, Mina Dinh, Arda Dur- maz, Patrick Ellsworth, Masahiro Hitomi, Erin McClure, Andriy Marusyk, Artem Kaznatcheev, and Jacob G Scott. Measuring competitive exclusion in non–small cell lung cancer. Science Advances, 8(26):eabm7212, 2022. 14

    2022

  58. [66]

    Spatial seg- regation and cooperation in radially expanding micro- bial colonies under antibiotic stress

    Anupama Sharma and Kevin B Wood. Spatial seg- regation and cooperation in radially expanding micro- bial colonies under antibiotic stress. The ISME journal , 15(10):3019–3033, 2021

    2021

  59. [67]

    Frequency-dependent ecological interactions increase the prevalence, and shape the distribution, of preexisting drug resistance

    Jeff Maltas, Dagim Shiferaw Tadele, Arda Durmaz, Christopher D McFarland, Michael Hinczewski, and Ja- cob G Scott. Frequency-dependent ecological interactions increase the prevalence, and shape the distribution, of preexisting drug resistance. PRX Life, 2(2):023010, 2024

    2024

  60. [68]

    The balance between intrinsic and ecological fitness defines new regimes in eco- evolutionary population dynamics

    Rowan J Barker-Clarke, Jason M Gray, Maximilian AR Strobl, Jeff Maltas, Dagim Shiferaw Tadele, Michael Hinczewski, and Jacob G Scott. The balance between intrinsic and ecological fitness defines new regimes in eco- evolutionary population dynamics. bioRxiv, pages 2023– 03, 2023

    2023

  61. [69]

    The logic of ani- mal conflict

    J Maynard Smith and George R Price. The logic of ani- mal conflict. Nature, 246(5427):15–18, 1973

    1973

  62. [70]

    Exact stochastic simulation of cou- pled chemical reactions

    Daniel T Gillespie. Exact stochastic simulation of cou- pled chemical reactions. The journal of physical chem- istry, 81(25):2340–2361, 1977

    1977

  63. [71]

    Shift in the velocity of a front due to a cutoff

    Eric Brunet and Bernard Derrida. Shift in the velocity of a front due to a cutoff. Physical Review E, 56(3):2597, 1997

    1997

  64. [72]

    Finite populations

    Martin A Nowak. Finite populations. [92], chapter 6, pages 93–105

  65. [73]

    Multidrug resistance in bacteria

    Hiroshi Nikaido. Multidrug resistance in bacteria. Annual review of biochemistry , 78(1):119–146, 2009

    2009

  66. [74]

    Multidrug resistance in gram-negative bac- teria

    Keith Poole. Multidrug resistance in gram-negative bac- teria. Current opinion in microbiology , 4(5):500–508, 2001

    2001

  67. [75]

    Cancer multidrug resistance

    Aris Persidis. Cancer multidrug resistance. Nature biotechnology, 17(1):94–95, 1999

    1999

  68. [76]

    Mecha- nisms of multidrug resistance in cancer

    Jean-Pierre Gillet and Michael M Gottesman. Mecha- nisms of multidrug resistance in cancer. Multi-drug re- sistance in cancer, pages 47–76, 2010

    2010

  69. [77]

    Targeting multidrug resistance in cancer

    Gergely Szak´ acs, Jill K Paterson, Joseph A Ludwig, Catherine Booth-Genthe, and Michael M Gottesman. Targeting multidrug resistance in cancer. Nature reviews Drug discovery, 5(3):219–234, 2006

    2006

  70. [78]

    Genomic heterogeneity underlies multidrug resistance in pseudomonas aerugi- nosa: A population-level analysis beyond susceptibility testing

    Laura J Rojas, Mohamad Yasmin, Jacquelynn Ben- jamino, Steven M Marshall, Kailynn J DeRonde, Nikhil P Krishnan, Federico Perez, Andrew A Colin, Monica Car- denas, Octavio Martinez, et al. Genomic heterogeneity underlies multidrug resistance in pseudomonas aerugi- nosa: A popul...

    2022

  71. [79]

    Steering evolution with sequential ther- apy to prevent the emergence of bacterial antibiotic resis- tance

    Daniel Nichol, Peter Jeavons, Alexander G Fletcher, Robert A Bonomo, Philip K Maini, Jerome L Paul, Robert A Gatenby, Alexander RA Anderson, and Ja- cob G Scott. Steering evolution with sequential ther- apy to prevent the emergence of bacterial antibiotic resis- tance. PLoS co...

    2015

  72. [80]

    Reinforcement learning informs optimal treatment strategies to limit antibiotic resistance

    Davis T Weaver, Eshan S King, Jeff Maltas, and Jacob G Scott. Reinforcement learning informs optimal treatment strategies to limit antibiotic resistance. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 121(16):e2303165121, 2024

    2024

  73. [81]

    Evolution-informed strategies for combating drug resistance in cancer

    Kristi Lin-Rahardja, Davis T Weaver, Jessica A Scarbor- ough, and Jacob G Scott. Evolution-informed strategies for combating drug resistance in cancer. International Journal of Molecular Sciences , 24(7):6738, 2023

    2023

  74. [82]

    Controlling the speed and trajectory of evolution with counterdiabatic driving

    Shamreen Iram, Emily Dolson, Joshua Chiel, Julia Pelesko, Nikhil Krishnan, ¨Ozen¸ c G¨ ung¨ or, Benjamin Kuznets-Speck, Sebastian Deffner, Efe Ilker, Jacob G Scott, et al. Controlling the speed and trajectory of evolution with counterdiabatic driving. Nature Physics, 17(1):135...

    2021

  75. [83]

    Steering and controlling evolution—from bio- engineering to fighting pathogens

    Michael L¨ assig, Ville Mustonen, and Armita Nourmo- hammad. Steering and controlling evolution—from bio- engineering to fighting pathogens. Nature Reviews Ge- netics, 24(12):851–867, 2023

    2023

  76. [84]

    A survey of open questions in adaptive therapy: Bridging mathematics and clinical translation

    Jeffrey West, Fred Adler, Jill Gallaher, Maximil- ian Strobl, Renee Brady-Nicholls, Joel Brown, Mark Roberson-Tessi, Eunjung Kim, Robert Noble, Yannick Viossat, et al. A survey of open questions in adaptive therapy: Bridging mathematics and clinical translation. Elife, 12:e84263, 2023

    2023

  77. [85]

    Ecological modeling from time-series inference: insight into dynamics and stability of intestinal microbiota

    Richard R Stein, Vanni Bucci, Nora C Toussaint, Char- lie G Buffie, Gunnar R¨ atsch, Eric G Pamer, Chris Sander, and Joao B Xavier. Ecological modeling from time-series inference: insight into dynamics and stability of intestinal microbiota. PLoS computational biology, 9(12):e...

    2013

  78. [86]

    Saurabh R Gandhi, Eugene Anatoly Yurtsev, Kirill S Ko- rolev, and Jeff Gore. Range expansions transition from pulled to pushed waves as growth becomes more coopera- tive in an experimental microbial population.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 113(25):6922–6927, 2016

    2016

  79. [87]

    Expansion load and the evolutionary dynamics of a species range

    Stephan Peischl, Mark Kirkpatrick, and Laurent Ex- coffier. Expansion load and the evolutionary dynamics of a species range. The American Naturalist , 185(4):E81– E93, 2015

    2015

  80. [88]

    Interspecific competition slows range expansion and shapes range boundaries

    Geoffrey Legault, Matthew E Bitters, Alan Hastings, and Brett A Melbourne. Interspecific competition slows range expansion and shapes range boundaries. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 117(43):26854–26860, 2020

    2020

  81. [89]

    Allee effect promotes diversity in travel- ing waves of colonization

    Lionel Roques, Jimmy Garnier, Fran¸ cois Hamel, and Eti- enne K Klein. Allee effect promotes diversity in travel- ing waves of colonization. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(23):8828–8833, 2012

    2012

  82. [90]

    Spatial sorting as the spatial analogue of natural selection

    Ben L Phillips and T Alex Perkins. Spatial sorting as the spatial analogue of natural selection. Theoretical Ecology, 12(2):155–163, 2019

    2019

  83. [91]

    What do we really know about adaptation at range edges? Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Sys- tematics, 51(1):341–361, 2020

    Amy L Angert, Megan G Bontrager, and Jon ˚Agren. What do we really know about adaptation at range edges? Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Sys- tematics, 51(1):341–361, 2020

    2020

  84. [92]

    Evolutionary dynamics: exploring the equations of life

    Martin A Nowak. Evolutionary dynamics: exploring the equations of life . Harvard university press, 2006

    2006

  85. [93]

    The chemical langevin equation

    Daniel T Gillespie. The chemical langevin equation. The Journal of Chemical Physics , 113(1):297–306, 2000

    2000

  86. [94]

    0” is a (3 , 3, 3L)-tensor with zeros for every element. In our system, we do not consider “self-interactions

    Ulf Dieckmann, Richard Law, and Johan AJ Metz. The geometry of ecological interactions: simplifying spatial complexity. Cambridge University Press, 2000. 15 APPENDICES Appendix A: Reaction-Diffusion Equations with Asymmetric Games In the system we consider, there are three typ...

    2000

  87. [95]

    βm + D d2m dx2 # dx. (B5) Using integration by parts, we get: 19 0 = ∞Z −∞ m

    Survival ODE In our system, we consider a single mutant that is initiated at position ξ and at time τ . The conditional probability that this mutant is at a position x at a later time t is given by p(x, t|ξ, τ). In order to sim- plify calculations we assume that t ≈ τ and that...

  88. [96]

    At the boundaries, we may use the theory of branching processes

    Boundary Conditions To solve the survival ODE, we require the boundary conditions u(±∞). At the boundaries, we may use the theory of branching processes. Our state of the branch- ing process is the total number of mutations (Mtot). The key to determining the boundary condition...

  89. [97]

    Finding a form for F (x, u) We may now make an argument for the form ofF (x, u) in Eq. (B10). We assume that the values of the sur- vival probability saturate to constants in regions near the boundaries of the system. In this case, we have du dx = 0 and d2u dx2 = 0. Denoting ˜...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.