Did Gause Have a Yeast Infection?

We planned to develop predator–prey models using Paramecium and yeast, but they have not been empirically examined since work by Gause in the 1930s. Therefore, we evaluated if Paramecium aurelia ingests and grows on eight yeasts. Recognising that it ingested yeasts but could not grow, we assessed if...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:The Journal of eukaryotic microbiology 2016-09, Vol.63 (5), p.552-557
Main Authors: Pritchard, Jonathon O., Porter, Alice H.M., Montagnes, David J.S.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Animals
Aurelia
Bacteria
Blepharisma
Ciliophora - growth & development
Ciliophora - pathogenicity
Ciliophora - physiology
Colpidium striatum
Euplotes - growth & development
Euplotes - pathogenicity
Euplotes patella
Functional response
Marine
model organism
Models, Biological
Models, Theoretical
Mortality
Paramecium
Paramecium - growth & development
Paramecium - pathogenicity
Paramecium - physiology
Paramecium aurelia
Population Dynamics
Predatory Behavior - physiology
Rosenzweig-MacArthur model
Tetrahymena pyriformis
Tetrahymenina
Yeasts
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:We planned to develop predator–prey models using Paramecium and yeast, but they have not been empirically examined since work by Gause in the 1930s. Therefore, we evaluated if Paramecium aurelia ingests and grows on eight yeasts. Recognising that it ingested yeasts but could not grow, we assessed if it might grow on other yeasts, by empirically parameterising a predator–prey model that relies on ingestion, not growth. Simulations were compared to P. aurelia‐yeast time‐series data, from Gause. We hypothesised that if the model simulated predator–prey dynamics that mimicked the original data, then possibly P. aurelia could grow on yeast; simulations did not mimic the original data. Reviewing works by Gause exposed two issues: experiments were undoubtedly contaminated with bacteria, allowing growth on bacteria, not yeast; and the population cycle data cannot be considered a self‐sustaining time series, as they were manipulated by adding yeast and ciliates. We conclude that past and future work should not rely on this system, for either empirical or theoretical evaluations. Finally, although we show that P. aurelia, P. caudatum, Euplotes patella, and Blepharisma sp. cannot grow on yeast, Tetrahymena pyriformis and Colpidium striatum can; these may provide models to explore predator–prey dynamics.
ISSN:1066-5234
1550-7408
DOI:10.1111/jeu.12299