Reader Comments

Post a new comment on this article

snowdrift game?

Posted by MarcoA on 05 Oct 2010 at 05:23 GMT

I don't understand, your initial argument is about the 2-person snowdrift game, in which maximal group benefit occurs, as you say, when everybody cooperates.

But isn't your glucose a public good (99% percent diffuses away from the cell, all other cells can exploit it)? If your system is a public goods game (not a 2-person game) then there is nothing surprising with the fact that maximal group benefit occurs when some defectors are present in a well-mixed population.

Am I missing something?
Thanks

Marco Archetti

No competing interests declared.

RE: snowdrift game?

LaurenceDHurst replied to MarcoA on 07 Oct 2010 at 10:22 GMT

Dr Archetti asks if he is missing something. The answer must be yes, as his reasoning, as much as it can be discerned given the absence of a specified model, accords neither with our theory nor our experimental results.

He suggests that for N-player games in well-mixed conditions, it is to be expected that population fitness should be maximized when “cheats” are present. However, as our paper makes transparent, in both theory and experiment when the yeast are well-mixed (in shaken flasks) "cheats" don't aid population growth. “Cheats” aid population growth only when grown on agar and do so if unmixed.

RCM, AFH, DG, LDH, IG

No competing interests declared.

RE: RE: snowdrift game?

MarcoA replied to LaurenceDHurst on 29 Nov 2010 at 17:35 GMT

Yes, in N-player games in well-mixed conditions population growth is maximized when “cheats” are present (not a very well known result, unfortunately). That's why your data are interesting!

Ok, this is not an efficient way of discussing (sorry, it was just an impromptu comment), I'll write you an email.

M.A.

No competing interests declared.