Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2024 Mar 6;19(3):e0297307. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0297307

Studying mixed-species biofilms of Candida albicans and Staphylococcus aureus using evolutionary game theory

Sybille Dühring 1,*, Stefan Schuster 1
Editor: Geelsu Hwang2
PMCID: PMC10917284  PMID: 38446770

Abstract

Mixed-species biofilms of Candida albicans and Staphylococcus aureus pose a significant clinical challenge due to their resistance to the human immune system and antimicrobial therapy. Using evolutionary game theory and nonlinear dynamics, we analyse the complex interactions between these organisms to understand their coexistence in the human host. We determine the Nash equilibria and evolutionary stable strategies of the game between C. albicans and S. aureus and point out different states of the mixed-species biofilm. Using replicator equations we study the fungal-bacterial interactions on a population level. Our focus is on the influence of available nutrients and the quorum sensing molecule farnesol, including the potential therapeutic use of artificially added farnesol. We also investigate the impact of the suggested scavenging of C. albicans hyphae by S. aureus. Contrary to common assumptions, we confirm the hypothesis that under certain conditions, mixed-species biofilms are not universally beneficial. Instead, different Nash equilibria occur depending on encountered conditions (i.e. varying farnesol levels, either produced by C. albicans or artificially added), including antagonism. We further show that the suggested scavenging of C. albicans’ hyphae by S. aureus does not influence the overall outcome of the game. Moreover, artificially added farnesol strongly affects the dynamics of the game, although its use as a medical adjuvant (add-on medication) may pose challenges.

Introduction

Biofilm infections, especially those of fungal and polymicrobial origin, are a significant clinical challenge [13]. One of the most serious problems concerning fungal biofilms is their recalcitrance to antifungal therapy [2, 4] as they provide resistance to chemical and physical removal and to antimicrobial drugs [57]. Mixed bacterial-fungal biofilms are an even more complex challenge to the immune system and are associated with worse clinical outcomes [8, 9]. In these biofilms, both pathogens become more virulent [10] and the infections are associated with higher morbidity and mortality compared to their mono-infections [1113]. Using evolutionary game theory (EGT) we study the interactions between the fungus Candida albicans and the bacterium Staphylococcus aureus in a mixed-species biofilm.

C. albicans and S. aureus co-infections and biofilm structure

Together these pathogens can form complex polymicrobial biofilms inside the human host [1416]. This biofilm formation is usually thought to be mutually beneficial to the fungus and the bacterium as it provides protection [9, 11], metabolic cooperation [16], the ability to colonise and cause infections [17, 18], host evasion [10, 17, 19], and a reduction in drug susceptibility [57, 15, 2024].

As a dimorphic fungus C. albicans can change its morphology from yeast to hyphal forms and back [12, 16]. Within a C. albicans-S. aureus biofilm one can find both, C. albicans yeast and hyphal cells, embedded within an extracellular matrix [2528]. When interacting with C. albicans, S. aureus can colonise niches in the host that have otherwise unfavourable conditions and are typically not colonised by the bacterium alone [9, 29]. Even when injected at different body sites of the same host, S. aureus disseminates to sites of C. albicans infections and settles within the filamentous networks of the C. albicans biofilms [9, 11, 13]. In that process, S. aureus prefers C. albicans hyphae for attachment as well as biofilm formation [20, 23, 30, 31].

Growth rates and nutrient dependency

In poly-microbial biofilms with C. albicans, S. aureus’ growth is enhanced, resulting in larger biofilms [14, 15, 17]. However, literature findings regarding C. albicans’ growth in such biofilms are inconclusive. Some studies indicate no significant difference in C. albicans’ growth between mono- and poly-microbial biofilms [9, 17, 20], while others observe mutual benefit with enhanced growth rates for both species [5, 11, 12].

Whether growing in a mixed-species biofilm together with S. aureus is beneficial to C. albicans (deduced from an increase in growth rate) may depend on the availability of nutrients in the surrounding environment. In settings where S. aureus and C. albicans compete for nutrients [11] and as the biofilm matures, the number of dead C. albicans cells increases [15]. It is commonly assumed that poly-microbial biofilms do not exhibit lethality towards either organism, allowing C. albicans and S. aureus to grow without antagonism [16, 17]. However, Shirtliff et al. [22] suggest that the initially synergistic relationship between C. albicans and S. aureus can transition to competition or even antagonism at a certain point [22] and it was even suggested that under sparse nutritional conditions S. aureus can scavenge C. albicans’ cell wall [15].

Farnesol as a quorum sensing molecule of C. albicans

As a protective strategy against bacterial attacks and nutrient competition, C. albicans employs farnesol [32, 33]. Farnesol, an acyclic sequestering alcohol, acts as a quorum sensing molecule in C. albicans, regulating biofilm formation by inhibiting the yeast-to-hyphae transition [28, 32, 34]. This transition is crucial for tissue invasion and biofilm development [11]. High farnesol levels inhibit filamentation and promote yeast budding in C. albicans [35, 36]. By regulating hyphae formation in dense cell populations like biofilms, C. albicans gains protection against bacterial competitors and the host immune system [32]. Farnesol also prevents Nrg1 degradation in C. albicans [37], facilitating the dispersion of yeast cells from mature biofilms and colonisation of new sites [28]. Additionally, farnesol quorum sensing is believed to conserve energy for C. albicans when nutrients get sparse [32, 33].

Farnesol not only protects C. albicans by influencing its morphology, but it also affects S. aureus in various ways. It impairs S. aureus’ biofilm formation and compromises its cell membrane integrity, viability, and susceptibility to antibiotics [6, 9, 22]. Farnesol inhibits S. aureus’ growth and reduces its biofilm formation. It increases the bacterium’s sensitivity to antibiotics, particularly in highly resistant S. aureus strains [11, 23]. That effect may be attributed to cell membrane damage and improved antibiotic diffusion to target sites [9]. The impact of C. albicans’ farnesol on S. aureus’ biofilm development depends on the concentration of farnesol [2], with the highest vancomycin tolerance observed at levels of 30 μM to 40 μM [38]. Kong et al. [38] propose that farnesol induces oxidative stress, activating a protective stress response through efflux pumps in S. aureus, which subsequently leads to heightened tolerance against antibacterials [38]. Thus, S. aureus’ tolerance to antimicrobials initially increases with low concentrations of farnesol before dramatically decreasing at higher concentrations [38]. High farnesol concentrations result in a decrease in C. albicans’ hyphae, as well as the viability and biofilm capability of S. aureus, ultimately leading to the end of the mixed-species biofilm. This suggests a potential role for C. albicans’ farnesol in orchestrating interactions within the mixed biofilm of C. albicans and S. aureus [7, 22].

Analysing biofilm dynamics using evolutionary game theory

Even though cooperation between species is evolutionary harder to explain than the cooperation of the same species or genotype, polymicrobial biofilms provide the basic conditions that enable cooperation between different species. Certain conditions can lead to cooperation in biofilms, benefiting all species involved. Characterising interactions within a complex system as either cooperation or competition requires careful consideration of multiple factors. Even though the actual biomass might remain unchanged or decrease, one species can benefit by gaining protection from environmental stressors or expanding into new niches, ultimately resulting in an increased overall fitness [10, 39].

To study the complex interactions between species EGT provides a helpful tool and conceptual framework. EGT, especially Nash equilibria and replicator equations are applied to many research fields, such as ecology, medicine, bacterial populations and cancer therapy [4048]. For an introduction to EGT and replicator equations as well as their applications to microbial biology see [4951]. For studies on the host-pathogen interactions of C. albicans and the human immune system, using EGT see [5254].

Hummert et al. [52] suggest using game theory to study the morphological transition of C. albicans inside human macrophages. They establish a symmetric game between C. albicans cells, including the human host as a third player by representing it through adjustable parameters. Tyc et al. [55] use a symmetrical two-player game to model the pair-wise interactions of C. albicans yeast and hyphae cells, analysing the morphological changes in C. albicans. They assume the player’s payoffs to be nutrient-dependent and use sigmoidal population dynamics as payoff functions. They further derive replicator equations for the fungal population from the payoff matrix of their symmetric game to infer the dynamics of the yeast to hyphae ratio within a C. albicans population.

In this paper, we use EGT to analyse the complex interactions of C. albicans and S. aureus in a mixed-species biofilm. For this we extend the symmetrical approaches proposed by Hummert et al. [52] and Tyc et al. [55] to an asymmetrical two-player game between S. aureus and C. albicans. In the Methods section, we establish the payoff matrices for both players, explaining the benefits and costs for each strategy pairing, and derive the resulting replicator equations of the game. In the Results section we study the biofilm interactions on a population level and analyse the stability conditions for different population profiles. By determining the fixed points of the replicator equations we establish the Nash equilibria of the game and extend our studies to evolutionary stable strategies. We study the qualitative behaviour of the biofilm dynamics by simulating possible population profiles under different parameter conditions. We incorporate variable nutrient and farnesol levels to model the variations in nutrient abundance and scarcity in the environment, as well as the impact of farnesol on the system. As it is suggested that S. aureus can switch from cooperation to exploitation and feed on C. albicans hyphae [15] we distinguish two cases. In the first case, we consider the feeding of C. albicans’ hyphae by S. aureus with a resulting benefit for the bacterium and loss for the fungus, whereas in the second case, no such feeding occurs.

Methods

Characterisation of the game

Using EGT, we study the (pairwise) interactions between the fungus C. albicans and the bacterium S. aureus in a mixed-species biofilm. Each player can adopt two strategies. For S. aureus we distinguish between the strategies “cooperation” (coo) and “exploitation” (exp). For C. albicans we distinguish between the strategies “yeast” (ye) and “hyphae” (hy). Each cell’s payoff, denoted by

Eplayer(C.albicansstrategy,S.aureusstrategy),

is determined by its own and the other player’s choice in strategy.

When a S. aureus cell adopting the cooperative strategy encounters a C. albicans cell in its yeast form we assume that they neither harm nor benefit each other, as S. aureus prefers C. albicans hyphae to attach to [14, 15, 20, 23, 30, 31]. Hence both players gain their basic fitness as a benefit. To model each player’s basic fitness we follow Tyc et al.’s [55] assumption of sigmoidal population growth for C. albicans yeast (EY) and hyphae (EH) and extend it to S. aureus (ES). The payoffs of C. albicans yeast and S. aureus cooperators are denoted as:

EC.albicans(ye,coo)=EY=uYnσuY+nσandES.aureus(ye,coo)=ES=uSnσuS+nσ. (1)

The nutrition provided by the environment is denoted by n while u and σ are morphology dependent parameters.

To gain more nutrients from the host, C. albicans can change its morphology from yeast to hyphae [56]. This change in morphology induces the mixed-species biofilm formation of C. albicans and S. aureus [16]. When a S. aureus cell adopting the cooperative strategy is interacting with a C. albicans hyphae cell the invasion of host tissue, driven by C. albicans, is simplified through S. aureus virulence factors [18]. Both players’ gain by invading the host for nutrients is denoted by I1 and is shared between S. aureus and C. albicans hyphae with factor b. Additionally, the resistance of the mixed-species biofilm is significantly increased compared to the resistance of both single-species biofilms [6, 23, 24]. This increase in resistance is denoted by the factor r and affects both S. aureus and C. albicans hyphae. The payoffs of the two players are then:

ES.aureus(hy,coo)=rES+bI1andEC.albicans(hy,coo)=rEH+(1-b)I1withEH=uHnσuH+nσ (2)

as C. albicans’ hyphae basic fitness.

Once the nutrients provided by the host are running low it is suggested that S. aureus can switch from cooperation to exploitation and feed on C. albicans hyphae [15]. To test this hypothesis we denote the gain and loss resulting from the theft of nutrients originating from C. albicans hyphae by I2. For simplicity, we set I1 = 0 and assume that the host no longer provides any nutrients. Allowing for very small values of I1 might be an interesting future study. The potential parasitism of S. aureus can be countered by C. albicans with farnesol [32, 33]. The costs for the farnesol production by C. albicans are denoted by f1.

Farnesol affects S. aureus in more than one way. Firstly, the C. albicans hyphae population is gradually decreasing and, thus, so are S. aureus’ potential exploitation partners. As yeast cells remain in their yeast form and hyphae cells die through S. aureus’ exploitation, the bacteria cells encounter fewer hyphae cells to feed on. Secondly, farnesol is impacting the growth of S. aureus [6, 23, 38]. This change in growth is considered by f2. While very low levels of farnesol can have a positive effect on S. aureus’ growth by causing a heightened tolerance against antibacterials (f2 < 0 increasing the growth rate), increasing amounts of farnesol negatively affect S. aureus’ growth as the tolerance against antibacterials drastically drops (f2 > 0 decreasing the growth rate) [38]. The payoffs for the two players in this stage of the biofilm are:

EC.albicans(hy,exp)=rEH-I2-f1andES.aureus(hy,exp)=rES+I2-f2. (3)

As the release of farnesol promotes C. albicans’ yeast form, a S. aureus cell adopting the exploitation strategy is encountering more and more C. albicans yeast cells. This usually marks the end of the mixed-species biofilm. The payoffs for both players in this scenario are:

EC.albicans(ye,exp)=EY-f1andES.aureus(ye,exp)=ES-f2. (4)

Farnesol is suggested as a medical adjuvant (add-on medication) to shift the balance of a mixed-species biofilm to more favourable conditions for the patients [57]. To test the impact of artificially added farnesol on the system we introduce far as the change in growth caused by artificially added farnesol. We assume that the concentrations of the artificially added farnesol are always high enough, that far is reducing S. aureus growth. Therefore, we subtract far from all S. aureus’ payoffs. High concentrations of farnesol also reduce C. albicans hyphae’s growth. Hence, we subtract far from EC. albicans(hy, coo) and EC. albicans(hy, exp). For C. albicans yeast cells the effect of added farnesol depends on the opponent they are playing against. For C. albicans yeast cells playing against cooperating S. aureus cells, we assume no effect of the added farnesol on EC. albicans(ye, coo). For C. albicans yeast cells playing against exploiting S. aureus cells, we assume a positive effect as C. albicans’ farnesol production costs are lowered. Hence, we add far to EC. albicans(ye, exp). All variables used to model the game are given in Table 1. A summary of the four considered biofilm stages of the game and the payoffs each player gains at each stage is given in Fig 1.

Table 1. List of all variables, their description and domain of definition used to model the interactions of C. albicans and S. aureus in a mixed-species biofilm as an evolutionary game.

Variable Description Domain of definition
E Y Basic fitness of C. albicans yeast cells EYR+
E H Basic fitness of C. albicans hyphae cells EHR+
E S Basic fitness of S. aureus cells ESR+
n Nutrients provided by the environment nR+
u and σ Morphology dependent parameters defining the nutrient uptake uY,uS,uH,σR+
r Increase in resistance rR+
b Factor indicating the share in nutrients b ∈ (0, 1)
I 1 Both players’ gain by invading the host for nutrients I1R+ and hence (1-b)I1R+
I 2 Gain and loss (depending on the player) resulting from the theft of nutrients originating from C. albicans hyphae I2R0+
f 1 Farnesol production costs f1R+
f 2 Change in growth caused by released farnesol f2R
f ar Change in growth caused by artificially added farnesol farR0+
x Fraction of C. albicans yeast cells in the fungal population x ∈ [0, 1]
y Fraction of S. aureus cooperating cells in the bacterial population y ∈ [0, 1]

Fig 1. The four stages of the biofilm with the resulting payoffs for each pathogen within the evolutionary game.

Fig 1

a) Initial stage: S. aureus cells using the cooperative strategy are encountering C. albicans yeast cells (with yeast strategy). Both players gain their basic fitness (ES and EY) as a benefit. If artificially added farnesol is present in the biofilm surroundings the change in growth it is causing is given by far in the payoffs. b) Beginning of the biofilm: S. aureus cells with the cooperative strategy and C. albicans cells with hyphae strategy are forming a biofilm. Both pathogens’ gain in fitness (ES and EH) is increased by r due to the increase in biofilm resistance. Both players’ gain by invading the host for nutrients is denoted by I1 and is shared between S. aureus and C. albicans hyphae with the factor b. c) Disturbance of the biofilm: With low or no amounts of nutrients from the host S. aureus (with exploitation strategy) is feeding on C. albicans hyphae (with hyphae strategy). The gain and loss resulting from the theft of nutrients originating from C. albicans is given by I2. As a defence C. albicans starts releasing its own farnesol. The costs for the farnesol production by C. albicans are denoted by f1. The effects of the released farnesol on S. aureus are denoted by f2. d) End of the biofilm: Due to the released farnesol S. aureus cells with exploitation strategy are encountering C. albicans cells with yeast strategy.

The replicator equation model

To study the considered fungal-bacteria interactions on a population level we use replicator equations. Replicator equations are deterministic, monotonic, nonlinear differential equations. They are used in EGT to describe the dynamics of populations in which successful individuals outnumber less successful individuals. Each strategy of the game (described in the Methods section) is “played” by a certain fraction of the population. Let x ∈ [0, 1] be the fraction of C. albicans yeast cells in the fungal population. Then 1 − x describes the fraction of C. albicans hyphal cells in the fungal population. For the S. aureus population, y ∈ [0, 1] denotes the fraction of cooperating cells, while 1 − y gives the fraction of the S. aureus cells which have adopted the exploitation strategy. A population profile of the C. albicans population can then be given by the strategy vector x = (x, 1 − x)T. Equivalently the population profile of the S. aureus population is given by the strategy vector y = (y, 1 − y)T. The payoff matrices (established in the Methods section) for both players are

A=(EYEY-f1+farrEH+(1-b)I1-farrEH-I2-f1-far) (5)

for the C. albicans population and

B=(ES-farrES+bI1-farES-f2-farrES+I2-f2-far) (6)

for the S. aureus population. The replicator equations for both players are given by

x˙=x((Ay)1-xTAy)andy˙=y((Bx)1-yTBx) (7)

with (Ay)1 and (Bx)1 being the expected payoffs for x and y and xTAy and yTBx being the mean payoffs of the C. albicans and S. aureus populations. From this, we derive the replicator equations

x˙=x(1-x)(EY-rEH+I2+2far-y((1-b)I1+I2+far))andy˙=y(1-y)(bI1-I2+f2+x(I2-bI1)), (8)

describing the dynamic changes of both population profiles over time. To test the hypothesis of S. aureus feeding on C. albicans we either assign a positive value to I2, in case of exploitation, or set I2 equal to 0, in case of no exploitation. To evaluate the two cases of no and added farnesol we either assign a positive value, in case of artificially added farnesol, or 0, in case of no farnesol addition, to far.

Results

Nash equilibria and fixed points

One solution concept of a game is the Nash equilibrium concept. A Nash equilibrium is a set of strategies, one for each player of the game, where none of the players has an incentive to switch strategy unilaterally [58, 59]. It can be interpreted as a player’s best response to the strategy choice of the other players [6062]. It can be shown that the Nash equilibria of a game are the asymptotically stable fixed points of the replicator equation model of the same game [4951]. To analyse the dynamics of the game we are looking for solutions to x˙=y˙=0. We find five fixed points (x*, y*), including the four trivial solutions x*, y* ∈ {0, 1} (that is (0,0), (0,1), (1,0) and (1,1)) and for x*, y* ∈ (0, 1), a mixed strategy solution

(x^,y^)=(bI1-I2+f2bI1-I2,EY-rEH+I2+2farI2+(1-b)I1+far), (9)

provided that

0<bI1-I2+f2bI1-I2<1and0<EY-rEH+I2+2far<I2+(1-b)I1+far. (10)

By performing simulations for different parameter sets, we can get an idea of how the populations interact over time under different conditions. In this way, mathematical modelling can support experimental studies. Ideally, the interplay between computational biology studies and wet lab experiments fosters an improved understanding of these complex systems [63, 64]. For the system under study, quantitative experimental data are scarce so far. However, our aim is to provide a framework for hypothesis generation and verification within a qualitative study. Our simulations serve to show the general behaviour of the system. That is why we have flexibility in selecting representative values for the simulation as long as they adhere to the stability conditions corresponding to the four pure Nash equilibria of the game. It is worth mentioning that for determining the pure Nash equilibria, only the order relations among the payoffs rather than their exact values are relevant.

Fig 2 shows possible population profiles of the game over time under varying parameter conditions given in Table 2. For the simulations, we assumed no interference from third parties and set the artificial farnesol level far equal to zero. As morphology-dependent parameters, we fix uY, uH, uS, and σ arbitrarily and assume a variation of EY, EH, and ES to be due to a variation in the available nutrients of the environment n. For the specific values of uY, uH, and σ we follow Tyc et al. [55] and set uS accordingly.

Fig 2. The dynamical behaviour of the game.

Fig 2

The simulations show possible population profiles of C. albicans and S. aureus over time for varying parameter settings. For the parameter details of the simulations see Table 2. The end points of the simulations show all five fixed point cases with each case representing a possible state of the biofilm. All six simulations start with a 50/50 mix of hyphae and yeast cells in the C. albicans population and a 50/50 mix of exploiting and cooperating cells in the S. aureus population. Observations at the end of the simulations: a) All C. albicans cells adopt the hyphae strategy and all S. aureus cells adopt the exploitation strategy. b) All C. albicans cells adopt the yeast strategy and all S. aureus cells adopt the exploitation strategy. c) All C. albicans cells adopt the hyphae strategy and all S. aureus cells adopt the cooperation strategy. d) After an increase in C. albicans yeast cells at the beginning of the simulation, all C. albicans cells adopt the hyphae strategy and all S. aureus cells adopt the cooperation strategy. The simulations 2c and d both end in the same biofilm state. However, the course of the curve and the time needed to reach a fixed point are parameter-dependent. e) All C. albicans cells adopt the yeast strategy and all S. aureus cells adopt the cooperation strategy. f) For the inner fixed point we see oscillations of the population profiles with all four biofilm stages being possible.

Table 2. Parameter values corresponding to the different cases shown in Fig 2.

Parameter Case (0, 0) (Fig 2a) Case (1, 0) (Fig 2b) Case (0, 1) (Fig 2c/Fig 2d) Case (1, 1) (Fig 2e) Case (x^,y^) (Fig 2f)
n 0.83 1.5 0.1 / 1.5 1.5 0.1
I 1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2
I 2 0.09 0.12 0.05 / 0.12 0.12 0.4
f 2 −0.05 −0.05 0.05 0.05 0.1

For all cases: uY = 2, uH = 1, uS = 2.5, σ = 3, f1 = 0.02, r = 1.5, b = 0.4, far = 0 with all values listed having arbitrary units.

Depending on the parameter values, we see different outcomes for the strategy fractions of C. albicans and S. aureus. Our simulations show all five fixed point cases. Each case represents a possible state of the biofilm. Fig 2 shows the simulation results of the case I2 ≠ 0. It can be seen in Fig 2c and 2d that the course of the curve and the time needed to reach a fixed point are parameter-dependent. We find that for the inner fixed point oscillations can occur (Fig 2f). The simulations of the case I2 = 0 are very similar reaching the same fixed points. This is the case as the dynamical behaviour of the curves of both cases is qualitatively the same, but reached with different parameter values (for details see the S1 File). As in the case of I2 ≠ 0 again in the case of I2 = 0, the course of the curve and the time needed to reach a fixed point can differ as they are parameter-dependent.

For a system to converge to a Nash equilibrium the corresponding fixed point needs to be asymptotically stable [4951]. Therefore, to derive the Nash equilibria of the game we have to analyse the stability of the fixed points.

Stability analysis and evolutionary stable strategies

To analyse the stability of the five fixed points we use standard methods from local stability analysis based on the eigenvalues of the Jacobian matrix. For the five fixed points of the system, we find that the fixed points (0, 0), (1, 0), (0, 1) and (1, 1) are under the stability conditions given in Table 3 asymptotically stable and otherwise unstable (for details see the S2 File). In the case of stability, the four fixed points are the strict Nash equilibria (in pure strategies) of the game.

Table 3. The four ESS of the game (each representing a stage of the biofilm), their corresponding fixed points and the stability conditions necessary for reaching the fixed points.

Fixed Point (x*, y*) Stability Condition Game Scenario / ESS
(0, 0) rEHEY > I2 + 2far and f2 < I2bI1 Hyphae and Exploitation
(1, 0) rEHEY < I2 + 2far and f2 < 0 Yeast and Exploitation
(0, 1) EYrEH < (1 − b)I1far and f2 > I2bI1 Hyphae and Cooperation
(1, 1) EYrEH > (1 − b)I1far and f2 > 0 Yeast and Cooperation

It is noteworthy to mention that there is an alternative way to determine the four strict Nash equilibria of the game. This can be done by determining the maximum of each column of the two matrices A (Eq (5)) and B (Eq (6)). For example, if

EY>rEH+(1-b)I1-farandES-far>ES-f2-far (11)

the strategy pair Yeast—Cooperation (corresponding to the fixed point (1, 1)) is a Nash equilibrium. Or if

rEH-I2-f1-far>EY-f1+farandrES+I2-f2-far>rES+bI1-far (12)

the strategy pair Hyphae—Exploitation (corresponding to the fixed point (0, 0)) is a Nash equilibrium. Of course, the Nash equilibria and the conditions under which they occur, are the same regardless of the method used.

The eigenvalues of the inner fixed point (x^,y^) are either real and positive, or purely imaginary (complex conjugated eigenvalues with real part equals 0). In the case of positive eigenvalues, the inner fixed point is unstable. Under specific conditions (for details see the S2 File) pure imaginary eigenvalues can occur, indicating a centre or spiral. In this case, the inner fixed point (x^,y^) can either be stable or unstable with further analysis needed to determine the stability. However, as we are considering an asymmetric game, only the four strict Nash equilibria can be evolutionary stable strategies (ESS).

First described by Maynard Smith and Price [65], an ESS is a strategy (or strategy vector) that when adopted by all players of a population, no mutant strategy (or alternative best reply to an ESS) can invade. It can be interpreted as the optimal strategy choice for each individual to gain the maximal payoff. Each deviation from this optimal strategy vector leads to a fitness payoff below the mean payoff of the entire population. This self-regulating mechanism stabilises the ratio of strategy frequencies within a population and the strategy choice of individuals. The solution concept of ESS thereby refines the solution concept of the Nash equilibrium by adding a stability requirement regarding deviation or mutant strategies [65, 66]. For asymmetric games, Selten proved that the ESS has to be a strict Nash equilibrium [66]. We, therefore, omit further analysis of the inner fixed point and focus our discussions on the four ESS of the system.

What conditions influence C. albicans’ strategy choice?

From the stability conditions in Table 3, we can infer that C. albicans adopts the hyphae strategy when the nutrient gain from invading the host I1 and the resistance gain r are high or when the depletion/exploitation by S. aureus I2 and the growth change caused by artificially added farnesol far are low. Accordingly, we find that high levels of far and I2 as well as low levels of I1 and r support C. albicans’ strategy choice of yeast growth.

What conditions influence S. aureus’ strategy choice?

In situations where the yeast strategy of C. albicans is favoured, S. aureus’ strategy choice depends on the growth change caused by released farnesol (f2). If the effect of farnesol is beneficial for S. aureus (f2 < 0) the bacterium chooses its exploitation strategy. If, on the contrary, the effect of farnesol is harmful to the bacterium (f2 > 0) S. aureus adopts its cooperation strategy (see Table 3). While there are still S. aureus exploiters in C. albicans’ surroundings the fungus does well to increase the amount of farnesol. Increases in farnesol concentrations are likely to cause a strategy shift from exploitation to cooperation in S. aureus, as low concentrations of farnesol have a beneficial effect on S. aureus, while higher doses have a detrimental effect [38].

If C. albicans chooses its hyphae strategy S. aureus’ strategy choice depends on the relation between the change in growth caused by released farnesol and the gain in nutrients by feeding on C. albicans instead of the host (f2I2bI1). Low or even beneficial effects of farnesol on S. aureus (f2), low levels of nutrients provided by the host (I1), and a sufficiently high gain in nutrients through feeding on C. albicans (I2) cause S. aureus to choose its exploitation strategy. If instead, the level of nutrients provided by the host (I1) or the effect of farnesol on S. aureus (f2) are high S. aureus chooses cooperation.

It is noteworthy to recognise that high levels of nutrients provided by the host should make it unnecessary for S. aureus to feed on C. albicans risking the benefits of cooperation. In the case of equal levels of nutrients supplied by the host and C. albicans, the bacterium’s choice in strategy again only depends on the effect of farnesol on S. aureus. Fig 3 provides a summary of the conditions influencing the strategy choices of C. albicans and S. aureus, as well as the resulting ESS representing different stages of the biofilm.

Fig 3. The four ESS of our game (each representing a stage of the biofilm) and the parameter conditions influencing the strategy choice of each pathogen.

Fig 3

a) Yeast and Cooperation: For low I1 and r values and high I2, far and f2 values, C. albicans chooses its yeast strategy while S. aureus chooses its cooperation strategy. b) Hyphae and Cooperation and c) Hyphae and Exploitation: For high r and low far values the outcome of the game depends on the relation of f2I2-bI1. For I2 > bI1 and f2I2-bI1>1 as well as for I2 < bI1 and f2I2-bI1<1 C. albicans chooses its hyphae strategy while S. aureus chooses its cooperation strategy (Fig 3b). When instead I2 > bI1 and f2I2-bI1<1 as well as for I2 < bI1 and f2I2-bI1>1 C. albicans chooses its hyphae strategy while S. aureus chooses its exploitation strategy (Fig 3c). d) Yeast and Exploitation: For low I1, r and f2 values but high I2 and far values, C. albicans chooses its yeast strategy while S. aureus chooses its exploitation strategy.

The influence of artificially added farnesol (far) and nutritional exploitation by S. aureus (I2) on the system

To study the influence of nutrients (n) and the change in growth caused by farnesol (far and f2) on the mixed-species biofilm, we calculate the strategy fractions x and y at time step 100 (a.u.), where a quasi-equilibrium has already been established. We set I2 = 0.12 to simulate the case of exploitation or I2 = 0 in case of no exploitation. The parameter values of uY, uH, uS, σ, f1, r, and b are given in Table 2. We assume that I1 = 0.2 and simulate over n ∈ [0, 5], far ∈ [0, 0.1] and f2 ∈ [−0.1, 0.1]. The results are shown for selected f2 levels in Fig 4 (with I2 ≠ 0) and Fig 5 (with I2 = 0).

Fig 4. Simulation results of the case I2 ≠ 0.

Fig 4

For selected f2 values the strategy fractions of C. albicans (x) and S. aureus (y) are depicted at time step 100 (a.u.) with varying nutrient levels (n) and levels of growth change caused by farnesol (far and f2). Fig 4a and 4b show selected findings of C. albicans while Fig 4c–4e show selected findings of S. aureus. The population profiles of C. albicans and S. aureus differ depending on the number of nutrients (n), the levels of change in growth caused by farnesol (far and f2) and the gain and loss resulting from the exploitation (I2; see also Fig 5 for the results of the case I2 = 0 for comparison). A summary of the findings is given in Table 4.

Fig 5. Simulation results of the case I2 = 0.

Fig 5

For selected f2 values the strategy fractions of C. albicans (x) and S. aureus (y) are depicted at time step 100 (a.u.) with varying nutrient levels (n) and levels of growth change caused by farnesol (far and f2). Fig 5a and 5b show selected findings of C. albicans while Fig 5c–5e show selected findings of S. aureus. The population profiles of C. albicans and S. aureus differ depending on the number of nutrients (n), the levels of change in growth caused by farnesol (far and f2) and the gain and loss resulting from the exploitation (I2; see also Fig 4 for the results of the case I2 ≠ 0 for comparison). A summary of the findings is given in Table 4.

We find different population profiles of C. albicans and S. aureus depending on the number of nutrients (n), the levels of change in growth caused by farnesol (far and f2) and the gain and loss resulting from the exploitation (I2). To summarise the results for both populations in Table 4 we distinguish between the two cases of exploitation (I2 ≠ 0) and no exploitation (I2 = 0). For each case, we distinguish between different degrees of severity (beneficial, unsusceptible, low, moderate and high levels of change) in which released farnesol (f2) is affecting the S. aureus population. We further distinguish between different levels of change (high and low) caused by artificially added farnesol (far).

Table 4. The influence of farnesol (f2, far) and nutritional exploitation (I2) on the outcome of the game.

Summarised are the simulation results for the population profiles of C. albicans vs. S. aureus of the two case studies I2 ≠ 0 in Fig 4 and I2 = 0 in Fig 5 at time step 100 (a.u.) under varying amounts of nutrients (n) and levels of growth change caused by farnesol (far and f2).

f 2 far high far low Figure
I2 ≠ 0 beneficial (f2 < 0) yeast vs. exploiters yeast vs. exploiters see the S1 File
unsusceptible (f2 = 0) yeast vs. mixed population profile yeast vs. mixed population profile with a nutrient-dependent groove towards exploiters Fig 4c
low (f2 = 0.02) yeast vs. cooperators irregular oscillations in both population profiles Fig 4a; Fig 4d
moderate (f2 = 0.04) yeast vs. cooperators hyphae vs. mixed population profile with a nutrient-dependent groove towards exploiters Fig 4b; Fig 4e
high (f2 > 0.06) yeast vs. cooperators hyphae vs. cooperators see the S1 File
I2 = 0 very beneficial (f2 < −0.05) yeast vs. exploiters yeast with a bell-shaped gap of hyphae vs. exploiters and a mixed population profile with a raising towards cooperators Fig 5a; Fig 5c
beneficial (f2 = −0.04) yeast vs. exploiters yeast with a bell-shaped gap of hyphae vs. exploiters with a bell-shaped raising of cooperators similar to Fig 5a (see the S1 File); Fig 5d
unsusceptible (f2 = 0) yeast vs. mixed population profile hyphae except for a minority of yeast for very high n values vs. cooperators with a slope towards a mixed population profile for very high n values Fig 5b; Fig 5e
low, moderate & high (f2 > 0) yeast vs. cooperators hyphae vs. cooperators similar to Fig 4b see the S1 File

The case of I2 ≠ 0

Low farnesol concentrations can enhance the growth of S. aureus [38]. If farnesol levels are beneficial for the bacterium (f2 < 0), we only observe yeast in the C. albicans population and exploiters in the S. aureus population independent of n or far (for details see the S1 File).

For unsusceptible S. aureus strains (f2 = 0) only yeasts are observed in the C. albicans population independent of n or far. The population profile of S. aureus depends on the levels of far (see Fig 4c). High levels of far lead to a mixed population profile of cooperators and exploiters. For low levels of far, we find a groove towards exploiters reaching zero levels for low amounts of nutrients (n). The depth of the groove is nutrient-dependent and levels out for higher n values.

For low levels of f2 (f2 = 0.02), both population profiles are strongly affected by the artificial farnesol far (see Fig 4a and 4d). For high levels of far (far > 0.035), the population profile of C. albicans consists of yeast while the population profile of S. aureus consists of cooperators. However, for low levels of far (far < 0.035) the strategy fractions of both populations show irregular oscillations. We consider these oscillations to be the outcome of the unstable inner fixed point’s oscillations, rather than numerical artefacts.

Moderate to high levels of f2 (f2 ≥ 0.04), cause a switch in the C. albicans population profile at far = 0.035 similar to a bang-bang control. This results in an immediate change from hyphae to yeast in the population profile of C. albicans (see Fig 4b). The S. aureus population profile at moderate levels of f2 (f2 = 0.04) depends on the levels of far (see Fig 4e). For high levels of far, the S. aureus population profile consists of cooperators. For low far levels, we see a groove towards exploiters reaching y = 0.56 at far = 0.016 for low amounts of nutrients (n). This indicates a mixed population profile of cooperators and exploiters. The depth of this groove is nutrient-dependent and levels out for higher n values. For high levels of f2 (f2 > 0.06), the population profile of S. aureus consists of cooperators independent of n or far (for details see the S1 File).

The case of I2 = 0

Expectedly, we see the same ESSs for I2 = 0 and I2 ≠ 0 at the simulation endpoints. However, in the case of I2 = 0 the ESSs are reached at lower f2 values since the parameter space is shifted due to the omission of I2. Additionally, the system’s dynamic behaviour on the path to reaching the EESs differs between the two cases.

When the levels of far are high we always observe yeast in the C. albicans population independent of n or f2 (see Fig 5a and 5b). For low far values, the population profile of C. albicans depends on f2 and n. For very beneficial (low) f2 values, we find a majority of yeast. However, we also observe a bell-shaped gap of hyphae. Initially a minority, for increasing f2 values this gap of hyphae spreads towards higher n and lower far values until hyphae become the dominant form in the C. albicans population.

For extremely beneficial (extremely low) values of f2, the S. aureus population profile consists of exploiters (for details see the S1 File). With increasing, but still beneficial, f2 values we have to discriminate between high and low values of far. For high far values, the population profile remains unchanged with only exploiters being present. For low far values, we see a mixed population profile with a bell-shaped raising towards cooperators (see Fig 5c). This raising towards cooperators for low far values increases with increasing f2 values. Within a few simulation steps, the raising of a mixed population profile turns into a bell-shaped plateau of cooperators (see Fig 5d).

This dynamic changes for unsusceptible S. aureus strains (f2 = 0). For high far values, we see a mixed population profile of cooperators and exploiters. For low far values, we see a majority of cooperators except for very high amounts of nutrients (n) where again a mixed population profile occurs (see Fig 5e).

For low, moderate and highly susceptible S. aureus strains (f2 > 0) we only find cooperators independent of n or far (for details see the S1 File).

Discussion

The human microbiome is a topic of great current interest [6770]. Our paper contributes to its analysis by studying the interactions of the fungus C. albicans and the bacterium S. aureus, both of which can reside in the human body. Mixed-species biofilms of C. albicans and S. aureus are usually thought to be beneficial to both organisms [5, 11, 12]. However, some studies suggest that under certain conditions like nutrient sparsity, the interactions of C. albicans and S. aureus can become antagonistic [11, 15]. A possible role in orchestrating the interactions between C. albicans and S. aureus may be played by C. albicans’ quorum-sensing molecule farnesol [7, 22]. For this reason, farnesol is proposed as a medical adjuvant to shift the balance of the mixed-species biofilm to more favourable conditions for the patient [57].

In this paper, we answer the questions if mixed-species biofilms of C. albicans and S. aureus are always mutually beneficial; whether the suggested scavenging of C. albicans hyphae by S. aureus has an impact on the biofilm dynamic; how the state of the biofilm can be changed and how artificially added farnesol is impacting the state of the biofilm.

For this, we used mathematical modelling to study the interactions of C. albicans and S. aureus in a mixed-species biofilm. Applying EGT we studied the Nash equilibria and ESSs of the game between these two pathogens. Using replicator equations we investigated the population dynamics of the C. albicans-S. aureus biofilm. To analyse different states of the biofilm we allowed for different parameter levels and modelled the differences between nutrient abundance and sparsity of the surroundings. To test the influence of artificially added farnesol and the suggested feeding of C. albicans’ hyphae by S. aureus, we modelled and compared two cases with and without nutritional exploitation by S. aureus. Although our model is not directly based on quantitative experimental data, it elucidates the system behaviour under various conditions and provides testable hypotheses.

For future studies, one could also use Lotka-Volterra equations as an alternative approach to replicator equations [71]. Extending our study to different pHs in different human body niches or medical device environments is a promising avenue for future research. Investigating the nuanced impact of pH variations on the dynamics of mixed-species biofilms involving C. albicans and S. aureus could offer invaluable insights into the adaptability and behaviour of these biofilms in specific contexts. Furthermore, refining our model by analysing the role of the extracellular polymeric substance (EPS) and dissecting the overarching parameters, such as r and n into distinct components r1, r2, … and n1, n2, … might enable a detailed exploration of the role played by individual factors. This granular analysis could shed light on the specific influence of, for example, antibiotic and antifungal drug presence or the contributions of the biofilm matrix to resistance mechanisms and biofilm dynamics. However, given the complexity of the current model and the risk of over-fitting, a balanced approach is crucial.

Are mixed-species biofilms of C. albicans and S. aureus mutually beneficial?

Contrary to common assumptions, we confirm the hypothesis that under certain conditions, mixed-species biofilms are not universally beneficial. Instead, different Nash equilibria occur depending on encountered conditions (for example, varying farnesol levels, either produced by C. albicans or artificially added), including antagonism.

Studying the replicator equations of the game we showed that mixed-species biofilms of C. albicans and S. aureus are not necessarily mutually beneficial. Instead, we found that five different pairings of population profiles (the fixed points of the system), each representing a unique state of the biofilm, can arise depicting the whole spectra from cooperation to antagonism. Four of these strategy pairings (yeast—cooperation, yeast—exploitation, hyphae—cooperation and hyphae—exploitation) are Nash equilibria in pure strategies being evolutionary stable (see Table 3). Under certain conditions, a fifth Nash equilibrium in mixed strategies with oscillations in strategy fractions within the populations can occur. However, these oscillations are not evolutionary stable, with small variations in the biofilm conditions changing the population profiles of both organisms.

Does the suggested scavenging of C. albicans hyphae by S. aureus have an impact on the biofilm?

When analysing the suggested feeding of C. albicans’ hyphae by S. aureus, we found that the overall outcome of the game (that is the possible pairings of ESS) does not change when considering feeding (I2 ≠ 0) or non-feeding (I2 = 0). In both cases, we see the same qualitative behaviour of the dynamics, only reached with different parameter sets, as the course of the curve and the time needed to reach a fixed point are parameter-dependent (see Fig 2). That means that the scavenging of C. albicans’ hyphae by S. aureus does not influence if the state of the biofilm becomes antagonistic but rather at what point in time. Even without S. aureus feeding of C. albicans’ hyphae the state of the biofilm can become antagonistic. It is worth noting that because of the parameter-dependencies, the strategy fractions of C. albicans and S. aureus before reaching an ESS differ between the two cases but also between different parameter sets within each case (see Figs 4 and 5). The state of the biofilm is especially dependent on the available nutrients provided by the host (n and I1) and the levels of change in growth caused by farnesol (f2 and far). Interestingly and somehow surprisingly, C. albicans’ farnesol production cost (f1) does not seem to have an impact on the outcome of the game.

How can the state of the biofilm be changed?

The best chances for medical treatment and for the immune response to get the biofilm under control are when the biofilm state shows the strategy pairings of either yeast—cooperation or yeast—exploitation. In both game scenarios, both pathogens grow at their basic growth rates, not profiting from heightened resistance. This will facilitate medical treatment and increase the success of the host immune response against the biofilm. As a consequence, a solution to actively shift the state of the biofilm at any given time to strategy pairings of yeast—exploiters or yeast—cooperators even under conditions favouring hyphae, is needed.

Our studies indicate that one such solution could be to lower the gain in nutrients by invading the host (I1) to a critical threshold. C. albicans is likely to choose its yeast strategy facing low levels of nutrients provided by the host. However, this approach is only feasible in in vitro experiments. In in vivo treatments, this approach is not applicable. Another solution approach could be to dampen the increase in resistance (r). This would favour C. albicans’ yeast strategy but also requires more research.

More promising seems the approach to alter the state of the biofilm using the effect of farnesol on the system. In theory, there are multiple options for influencing the system through farnesol. As farnesol influences S. aureus’ growth rate, one could think of altering the bacterium’s sensitivity to the quorum sensing molecule through medication. Depending on the farnesol level of the system S. aureus’ growth rate is either enhanced or decreased concerning the tolerance against antibacterials. Low levels of farnesol are increasing the bacterium’s growth. However, passing a certain threshold, farnesol decreases the bacterium’s growth [38]. By lowering S. aureus’ threshold to farnesol, one could limit the growth of the biofilm. However, this approach risks a shift in the dynamics of the biofilm towards the cooperation of the two pathogens. S. aureus chooses cooperation to avoid high levels of farnesol, while C. albicans chooses its hyphae strategy as the level of farnesol is low. This shift would lead to a severe course of disease for the patient.

To avoid the cooperation of the two pathogens, one could heighten the farnesol level in the system. This approach would use the fact of decreased growth rates in S. aureus, passing a threshold in farnesol level, while at the same time taking into account the impact of farnesol on C. albicans’ morphological switch. This would result in S. aureus choosing its cooperation strategy and C. albicans choosing its yeast strategy. To further investigate this approach we studied the effect of artificially added farnesol on the system under varying nutrient concentrations and levels of change in growth caused by farnesol.

How is artificially added farnesol impacting the state of the biofilm?

Our research indicates that artificially added farnesol has a major impact on the dynamics of the game (see Table 4). The state of the biofilm is hereby highly dependent on the impact of released farnesol on S. aureus (f2) and the amount of artificially added farnesol (far). If one decides to use farnesol as a treatment the level of artificially added farnesol needs to be sufficiently high. Otherwise, cooperation between the two pathogens with its negative implications on the host can occur. However, as a quorum sensing molecule, farnesol might not only influence the mixed-species biofilm but also have an effect on other microbiota in the environment. Further studies are needed to assess the side effects and risks of high doses of farnesol on the patient. Simply decreasing the amount of added farnesol on the other side does not have the desired effect. Our studies show that too low levels of added farnesol allow for undesired strategy pairings, enabling cooperation, resulting again in negative implications on the host.

Conclusion

Our study contributes to the understanding of the complex dynamics within mixed-species biofilms, in particular, shedding light on the interactions between C. albicans and S. aureus and their responses to various environmental factors. The study identifies different states of the mixed-species biofilm, offering opportunities to explore interventions that shift the equilibrium towards more favourable conditions for medical treatments and host immune responses.

In our study, we identify non-universal benefits. Against common belief [57, 11, 12] we showed that mixed-species biofilms of C. albicans and S. aureus are not necessarily mutually beneficial. Instead, we found that the whole spectra from cooperation to antagonism is depicted in the choice of strategy pairings. Recognizing the nuanced and context-dependent nature of these interactions is crucial for devising targeted antibiofilm strategies. We showed that the suggested scavenging of C. albicans’ hyphae by S. aureus [15] does not influence the overall outcome of the game. Even without S. aureus feeding of C. albicans’ hyphae the state of the biofilm can become antagonistic, with both players no longer cooperating with each other.

Our study helps in understanding farnesol dynamics. Our focus on the quorum-sensing molecule farnesol provides insights into its impact on biofilm dynamics. The state of the biofilm is especially dependent on the available nutrients provided by invading the host (I1) and the levels of change in growth caused by farnesol (f2 and far). It is noteworthy that C. albicans’ farnesol production cost (f1) seems not to influence the outcome of the game. We further confirmed that artificially added farnesol has a major impact on the dynamics of the game. However, if one decides to use farnesol as a treatment the level of artificially added farnesol needs to be sufficiently high. Otherwise, cooperation between the two pathogens with its negative implications on the host can occur. Understanding how artificially added farnesol influences the game between C. albicans and S. aureus opens avenues for exploring its potential therapeutic use in manipulating biofilm states. Fine-tuning the dosage and administration could enhance its efficiency in controlling biofilm states. These insights may guide the development of tailored antibiofilm strategies based on the specific conditions encountered, allowing for more effective and personalized treatment approaches. Manipulating the pathways could offer strategies to disrupt biofilm formation and potentially augment existing antimicrobial therapies. By depicting how factors such as available nutrients, microbial interactions, and specific molecules impact biofilm dynamics, our study offers a framework for identifying critical targets for intervention.

Supporting information

S1 File. Additional simulation results.

(PDF)

pone.0297307.s001.pdf (154.2KB, pdf)
S2 File. Stability analysis of the five fixed points of the game.

(PDF)

pone.0297307.s002.pdf (887.7KB, pdf)

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting information files.

Funding Statement

We acknowledge support by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) within the CRC/Transregio 124 ‘Pathogenic fungi and their human host’ (project number 210879364). We further acknowledge support by the German Research Foundation Projekt-Nr. 512648189 and the Open Access Publication Fund of the Thueringer Universitaets- und Landesbibliothek Jena. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. There was no additional (internal and external) funding received for this study.

References

  • 1. Nobile CJ, Johnson AD. Candida albicans Biofilms and Human Disease. Annual review of microbiology. 2015;69:71–92. doi: 10.1146/annurev-micro-091014-104330 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2. Ramage G, Mowat E, Jones B, Williams C, Lopez-Ribot J. Our current understanding of fungal biofilms. Critical Reviews in Microbiology. 2009;35(4):340–355. doi: 10.3109/10408410903241436 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3. Nourizadeh N, Adabizadeh A, Zarrinfar H, Majidi M, Jafarian AH, Najafzadeh MJ. Fungal biofilms in sinonasal polyposis: The role of fungal agents is notable? Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Medicine, and Pathology. 2019;31(4):295–298. doi: 10.1016/j.ajoms.2019.01.007 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 4. Zarrinfar H, Kord Z, Fata A. High incidence of azole resistance among Candida albicans and C. glabrata isolates in Northeastern Iran. Current Medical Mycology. 2021;7(3):18. doi: 10.18502/cmm.7.3.7801 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5. Costa A, Pereira CA, Brito G. Mini-review–Candida albicans biofilms: characteristics, clinical relevance, and drug susceptibility. The Battle against Microbial Pathogens: Basic Science, Technological Advances and Educational Programs Spain: Formetex. 2015; p. 413–21. [Google Scholar]
  • 6. Todd OA, Peters BM. Candida albicans and Staphylococcus aureus Pathogenicity and Polymicrobial Interactions: Lessons beyond Koch’s Postulates. Journal of Fungi. 2019;5(3):81. doi: 10.3390/jof5030081 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7. Vila T, Kong EF, Ibrahim A, Piepenbrink K, Shetty AC, McCracken C, et al. Candida albicans quorum-sensing molecule farnesol modulates staphyloxanthin production and activates the thiol-based oxidative-stress response in Staphylococcus aureus. Virulence. 2019;10(1):625–642. doi: 10.1080/21505594.2019.1635418 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8. Bruno DdCF, Bartelli TF, Rodrigues CR, Briones MR. Prolonged growth of Candida albicans reveals co-isolated bacteria from single yeast colonies. Infection, Genetics and Evolution. 2018;65:117–126. doi: 10.1016/j.meegid.2018.07.021 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9. Peleg AY, Hogan DA, Mylonakis E. Medically important bacterial–fungal interactions. Nature Reviews Microbiology. 2010;8(5):340. doi: 10.1038/nrmicro2313 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10. Burmølle M, Ren D, Bjarnsholt T, Sørensen SJ. Interactions in multispecies biofilms: do they actually matter? Trends in Microbiology. 2014;22(2):84–91. doi: 10.1016/j.tim.2013.12.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11. Lindsay AK, Hogan DA. Candida albicans: molecular interactions with Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphylococcus aureus. Fungal Biology Reviews. 2014;28(4):85–96. doi: 10.1016/j.fbr.2014.10.002 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 12. Nash EE, Peters BM, Palmer GE, Fidel PL, Noverr MC. Morphogenesis Is Not Required for Candida albicans-Staphylococcus aureus Intra-Abdominal Infection-Mediated Dissemination and Lethal Sepsis. Infection and Immunity. 2014; p. IAI–01746. doi: 10.1128/IAI.01746-14 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13. Lohse MB, Gulati M, Johnson AD, Nobile CJ. Development and regulation of single-and multi-species Candida albicans biofilms. Nature Reviews Microbiology. 2018;16(1):19–31. doi: 10.1038/nrmicro.2017.107 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14. Kong EF, Tsui C, Kucharíková S, Andes D, Van Dijck P, Jabra-Rizk MA. Commensal Protection of Staphylococcus aureus against Antimicrobials by Candida albicans Biofilm Matrix. mBio. 2016;7(5):e01365–16. doi: 10.1128/mBio.01365-16 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15. Kean R, Rajendran R, Haggarty J, Townsend EM, Short B, Burgess KE, et al. Candida albicans mycofilms support Staphylococcus aureus Colonization and Enhances Miconazole Resistance in Dual-Species Interactions. Frontiers in Microbiology. 2017;8:258. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2017.00258 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16. Peters BM, Jabra-Rizk MA, Scheper MA, Leid JG, Costerton JW, Shirtliff ME. Microbial interactions and differential protein expression in Staphylococcus aureusCandida albicans dual-species biofilms. FEMS Immunology & Medical Microbiology. 2010;59(3):493–503. doi: 10.1111/j.1574-695X.2010.00710.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17. Zago CE, Silva S, Sanitá PV, Barbugli PA, Dias CMI, Lordello VB, et al. Dynamics of Biofilm Formation and the Interaction between Candida albicans and Methicillin-Susceptible (MSSA) and-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). PLoS One. 2015;10(4):e0123206. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0123206 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18. Schlecht LM, Peters BM, Krom BP, Freiberg JA, Hänsch GM, Filler SG, et al. Systemic Staphylococcus aureus infection mediated by Candida albicans hyphal invasion of mucosal tissue. Microbiology. 2015;161(1):168–181. doi: 10.1099/mic.0.083485-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19. Allison DL, Scheres N, Willems HM, Bode CS, Krom BP, Shirtliff ME. The host immune system facilitates disseminated Staphylococcus aureus disease due to phagocytic attraction to Candida albicans during coinfection: A case of bait and switch. Infection and immunity. 2019;87(11):e00137–19. doi: 10.1128/IAI.00137-19 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20. Harriott MM, Noverr MC. Candida albicans and Staphylococcus aureus Form Polymicrobial Biofilms: Effects on Antimicrobial Resistance. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. 2009;53(9):3914–3922. doi: 10.1128/AAC.00657-09 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21. Morales DK, Hogan DA. Candida albicans interactions with bacteria in the context of human health and disease. PLoS pathogens. 2010;6(4):e1000886. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1000886 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22. Shirtliff ME, Peters BM, Jabra-Rizk MA. Cross-kingdom interactions: Candida albicans and bacteria. FEMS microbiology letters. 2009;299(1):1–8. doi: 10.1111/j.1574-6968.2009.01668.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23. Kean R, Delaney C, Rajendran R, Sherry L, Metcalfe R, Thomas R, et al. Gaining Insights from Candida Biofilm Heterogeneity: One Size Does Not Fit All. Journal of Fungi. 2018;4(1):12. doi: 10.3390/jof4010012 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24. Pierce CG, Vila T, Romo JA, Montelongo-Jauregui D, Wall G, Ramasubramanian A, et al. The Candida albicans Biofilm Matrix: Composition, Structure and Function. Journal of Fungi. 2017;3(1):14. doi: 10.3390/jof3010014 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25. Alonso MF, Gow NA, Erwig LP, Bain JM. Macrophage Migration Is Impaired within Candida albicans Biofilms. Journal of Fungi. 2017;3(3):31. doi: 10.3390/jof3030031 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26. Gulati M, Nobile CJ. Candida albicans biofilms: development, regulation, and molecular mechanisms. Microbes and Infection. 2016;18(5):310–321. doi: 10.1016/j.micinf.2016.01.002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27. Ganguly S, Mitchell AP. Mucosal biofilms of Candida albicans. Current Opinion in Microbiology. 2011;14(4):380–385. doi: 10.1016/j.mib.2011.06.001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28. Desai JV, Mitchell AP. Candida albicans biofilm development and its genetic control. Microbiology Spectrum. 2015;3(3). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29. Vázquez-Sánchez D, Rodríguez-López P. Biofilm Formation of Staphylococcus aureus. In: Staphylococcus aureus. Elsevier; 2018. p. 87–103. [Google Scholar]
  • 30. Hirota K, Yumoto H, Sapaar B, Matsuo T, Ichikawa T, Miyake Y. Pathogenic factors in Candida biofilm-related infectious diseases. Journal of Applied Microbiology. 2017;122(2):321–330. doi: 10.1111/jam.13330 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31. Todd OA, Fidel PL, Harro JM, Hilliard JJ, Tkaczyk C, Sellman BR, et al. Candida albicans augments Staphylococcus aureus virulence by engaging the staphylococcal agr quorum sensing system. MBio. 2019;10(3):e00910–19. doi: 10.1128/mBio.00910-19 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32. Polke M, Jacobsen ID. Quorum sensing by farnesol revisited. Current genetics. 2017;63(5):791–797. doi: 10.1007/s00294-017-0683-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33. Ramage G, Saville SP, Wickes BL, López-Ribot JL. Inhibition of Candida albicans Biofilm Formation by Farnesol, a Quorum-Sensing Molecule. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 2002;68(11):5459–5463. doi: 10.1128/AEM.68.11.5459-5463.2002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34. Lof M, Janus MM, Krom BP. Metabolic Interactions between Bacteria and Fungi in Commensal Oral Biofilms. Journal of Fungi. 2017;3(3):40. doi: 10.3390/jof3030040 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35. Kumar A, Alam A, Rani M, Ehtesham NZ, Hasnain SE. Biofilms: Survival and defense strategy for pathogens. International Journal of Medical Microbiology. 2017;. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmm.2017.09.016 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36. Scherlach K, Hertweck C. Mediators of mutualistic microbe–microbe interactions. Natural Product Reports. 2018;35(4):303–308. doi: 10.1039/C7NP00035A [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37. Lu Y, Su C, Unoje O, Liu H. Quorum sensing controls hyphal initiation in Candida albicans through Ubr1-mediated protein degradation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2014;111(5):1975–1980. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1318690111 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38. Kong EF, Tsui C, Kucharíková S, Van Dijck P, Jabra-Rizk MA. Modulation of Staphylococcus aureus Response to Antimicrobials by the Candida albicans Quorum Sensing Molecule Farnesol. Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy. 2017; p. AAC–01573. doi: 10.1128/AAC.01573-17 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39. Kreft JU. Biofilms promote altruism. Microbiology. 2004;150(8):2751–2760. doi: 10.1099/mic.0.26829-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40. Kaveh K, Kohandel M, Sivaloganathan S. Replicator dynamics of cancer stem cell: Selection in the presence of differentiation and plasticity. Mathematical Biosciences. 2016;272:64–75. doi: 10.1016/j.mbs.2015.11.012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41. Khadem H, Kebriaei H, Veisi Z. Inactivation of tumor suppressor genes and cancer therapy: An evolutionary game theory approach. Mathematical Biosciences. 2017;288:84–93. doi: 10.1016/j.mbs.2017.03.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42. Kaznatcheev A, Vander Velde R, Scott JG, Basanta D. Cancer treatment scheduling and dynamic heterogeneity in social dilemmas of tumour acidity and vasculature. British journal of cancer. 2017;116(6):785–792. doi: 10.1038/bjc.2017.5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43. Asfahl KL, Schuster M. Social interactions in bacterial cell-cell signaling. FEMS Microbiology Reviews. 2017;41(1):92–107. doi: 10.1093/femsre/fuw038 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44. Grilli J, Barabás G, Michalska-Smith MJ, Allesina S. Higher-order interactions stabilize dynamics in competitive network models. Nature. 2017;548(7666):210–213. doi: 10.1038/nature23273 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45. West J, Ma Y, Newton PK. Capitalizing on competition: An evolutionary model of competitive release in metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer treatment. Journal of Theoretical Biology. 2018;455:249–260. doi: 10.1016/j.jtbi.2018.07.028 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46. Lynn BK, De Leenheer P. Division of labor in bacterial populations. Mathematical Biosciences. 2019;316:108257. doi: 10.1016/j.mbs.2019.108257 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47. Colman AM, Krockow EM, Chattoe-Brown E, Tarrant C. Medical prescribing and antibiotic resistance: A game-theoretic analysis of a potentially catastrophic social dilemma. PloS one. 2019;14(4):e0215480. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0215480 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48. Mack KM, Eppinga MB, Bever JD. Plant-soil feedbacks promote coexistence and resilience in multi-species communities. PloS one. 2019;14(2):e0211572. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0211572 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49. Hofbauer J, Sigmund K. Evolutionary game dynamics. Bulletin of the American mathematical society. 2003;40(4):479–519. doi: 10.1090/S0273-0979-03-00988-1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 50. Frey E. Evolutionary game theory: Theoretical concepts and applications to microbial communities. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications. 2010;389(20):4265–4298. doi: 10.1016/j.physa.2010.02.047 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 51. Hummert S, Bohl K, Basanta D, Deutsch A, Werner S, Theißen G, et al. Evolutionary game theory: cells as players. Molecular BioSystems. 2014;10(12):3044–3065. doi: 10.1039/C3MB70602H [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52. Hummert S, Hummert C, Schröter A, Hube B, Schuster S. Game theoretical modelling of survival strategies of Candida albicans inside macrophages. Journal of theoretical biology. 2010;264(2):312–318. doi: 10.1016/j.jtbi.2010.01.022 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53. Tyc KM, Herwald SE, Hogan JA, Pierce JV, Klipp E, Kumamoto CA. The game theory of Candida albicans colonization dynamics reveals host status-responsive gene expression. BMC systems biology. 2016;10(1):20. doi: 10.1186/s12918-016-0268-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54. Dühring S, Ewald J, Germerodt S, Kaleta C, Dandekar T, Schuster S. Modelling the host–pathogen interactions of macrophages and Candida albicans using Game Theory and dynamic optimization. Journal of The Royal Society Interface. 2017;14(132):20170095. doi: 10.1098/rsif.2017.0095 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55. Tyc KM, Kühn C, Wilson D, Klipp E. Assessing the advantage of morphological changes in Candida albicans: a game theoretical study. Frontiers in microbiology. 2014;5:41. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2014.00041 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56. Noble SM, Gianetti BA, Witchley JN. Candida albicans cell-type switching and functional plasticity in the mammalian host. Nature Reviews Microbiology. 2017;15(2):96–108. doi: 10.1038/nrmicro.2016.157 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57. Jabra-Rizk M, Meiller T, James C, Shirtliff M. Effect of farnesol on Staphylococcus aureus biofilm formation and antimicrobial susceptibility. Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy. 2006;50(4):1463–1469. doi: 10.1128/AAC.50.4.1463-1469.2006 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58. Barron EN. Game Theory: An Introduction. Vol. 2. John Wiley & Sons; 2008. [Google Scholar]
  • 59. Hofbauer J, Sigmund K. Evolutionary Games and Population Dynamics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1998. [Google Scholar]
  • 60. Nash JF, et al. Equilibrium points in n-person games. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences. 1950;36(1):48–49. doi: 10.1073/pnas.36.1.48 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61. Nash JF. Non-cooperative games. Annals of mathematics. 1951; p. 286–295. doi: 10.2307/1969529 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 62. Holt CA, Roth AE. The Nash equilibrium: A perspective. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2004;101(12):3999–4002. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0308738101 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63. Dühring S, Germerodt S, Skerka C, Zipfel PF, Dandekar T, Schuster S. Host-pathogen interactions between the human innate immune system and Candida albicans—understanding and modeling defense and evasion strategies. frontiers in Microbiology. 2015;6:625. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2015.00625 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64. Then A, Ewald J, Söllner N, Cooper RE, Küsel K, Ibrahim B, et al. Agent-based modelling of iron cycling bacteria provides a framework for testing alternative environmental conditions and modes of action. Royal Society Open Science. 2022;9(5):211553. doi: 10.1098/rsos.211553 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65. Maynard Smith J, Price GR. The logic of animal conflict. Nature. 1973;246(2):15–18. doi: 10.1038/246015a0 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 66. Selten R. A note on evolutionarily stable strategies in asymmetric animal conflicts. Journal of Theoretical Biology. 1980;84(1):93–101. doi: 10.1016/S0022-5193(80)81038-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67. Davenport ER, Sanders JG, Song SJ, Amato KR, Clark AG, Knight R. The human microbiome in evolution. BMC biology. 2017;15(1):1–12. doi: 10.1186/s12915-017-0454-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68. Lloyd-Price J, Mahurkar A, Rahnavard G, Crabtree J, Orvis J, Hall AB, et al. Strains, functions and dynamics in the expanded Human Microbiome Project. Nature. 2017;550(7674):61–66. doi: 10.1038/nature23889 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69. Gilbert JA, Blaser MJ, Caporaso JG, Jansson JK, Lynch SV, Knight R. Current understanding of the human microbiome. Nature medicine. 2018;24(4):392–400. doi: 10.1038/nm.4517 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70. Rackaityte E, Lynch SV. The human microbiome in the 21 st century. Nature Communications. 2020;11(1):1–3. doi: 10.1038/s41467-020-18983-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71. Křivan V, Galanthay TE, Cressman R. Beyond replicator dynamics: From frequency to density dependent models of evolutionary games. Journal of theoretical biology. 2018;455:232–248. doi: 10.1016/j.jtbi.2018.07.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Geelsu Hwang

30 Oct 2023

PONE-D-23-29022Studying mixed-species biofilms of Candida albicans and Staphylococcus aureus using Evolutionary Game TheoryPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Dühring,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 14 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Geelsu Hwang, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for stating in your Funding Statement: 

We acknowledge support by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) within the CRC/Transregio 124 ‘Pathogenic fungi and their human host’ (project number 210879364), subproject B1. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Please provide an amended statement that declares all the funding or sources of support (whether external or internal to your organization) received during this study, as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now.  Please also include the statement “There was no additional external funding received for this study.” in your updated Funding Statement. 

Please include your amended Funding Statement within your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Author prosed a nice study. I have following comment;

1: Besides considering the available nutrients and the quorum sensing molecule farnesol for making the model. Author should also consider the pH of the environment as an important factor. Mostly these two microbe present in symbiotic in the oral cavity. In the oral cavity there is drop of the pH to acidic. Then how this drop of pH influence the mixed biofilm with respect to the morphology, physiology and antimicrobial resistance.

2: How the mixed biofilm of S. aureus and C. albicans can be fitted in the proposed model in the presence of the antibiotic and antifungal drugs.

3: What about the EPS of biofilm matrix contribution by these microbes. On what ratio?

4: How this study will benefit to develop antibiofilm strategy.

Reviewer #2: A very unusual approach, definitely - the article deserves wide publicity. An excellent statistical work that has found its application in microbiology. Description of different strategies for the development of mixed biofilms. I would like to ask the author: what practical application of this work does he see?

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Nadezhda Sachivkina

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2024 Mar 6;19(3):e0297307. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0297307.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


14 Dec 2023

Subject: Response to Reviewers' and Editor's Comments on Manuscript Submission PONE-D-23-29022 - EMID:6e14a60959737897/Studying mixed-species biofilms of Candida albicans and Staphylococcus aureus using Evolutionary Game Theory

Dear Dr. Hwang,

We sincerely appreciate the time and effort invested by you and the esteemed reviewers in evaluating our manuscript titled "Studying mixed-species biofilms of Candida albicans and Staphylococcus aureus using Evolutionary Game Theory" for potential publication in PLOS ONE. Your insights and recommendations have been invaluable in refining our work. We have carefully considered each suggestion and comment provided by the reviewers and you and have incorporated them into the revised manuscript. We have attached a revised version of the manuscript. Please find our point-by-point responses to the reviewers' and your comments below.

Journal Requirements:

1. "[...] Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. [...]":

Thank you very much for providing the formatting guidelines. We have used the Latex template provided by PLOS ONE to format the manuscript. We have also checked against the guidelines provided and hope to adhere to the journal standards. If there are any specific areas that need to be adapted, or if there are particular instructions you'd like us to follow, we would greatly appreciate your guidance. Your specific details will help us to promptly address any necessary changes to ensure full compliance with PLOS ONE's style requirements.

2. "[...] Please provide an amended statement that declares all the funding or sources of support (whether external or internal to your organization) received during this study [...]":

Thank you for updating our amended Funding Statement in the online submission form on our behalf. Our amended statement is: "We acknowledge support by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) within the CRC/Transregio 124 ‘Pathogenic fungi and their human host’ (project number 210879364). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. There was no additional (internal and external) funding received for this study."

3. "Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or [...]:

Thank you for updating our Data Availability statement on our behalf. All the data is now in the manuscript. The model and parameter set to reproduce our simulation results are given in the Methods chapter (page 4-7) and the Results chapter (Table 2 on page 9 and page 11 paragraph 1 line 319-325) of the paper. To include all data we added another Supporting Information file named S2.pdf with the figures of the case study previously omitted from the paper (case I_2 unequal 0 for beneficial and high f_2 values as well as case I_2=0 for beneficial and low/moderate/high f_2 values). The results are either trivial or very similar to the figures already shown in the manuscript, depicting the same qualitative behavior. We therefor think there are most suited as Supporting Information. We updated paragraph 3 on page 8, Table 4 on page 12, paragraph 1, 4 and 7 on page 13 as well as paragraph 2 on page 14 in the manuscript to reference the new S2.pdf file. We further added the S2 File in the list of supporting information on page 21. We have found two minor typing errors (100 instead of 1000 simulation steps as well as two values for f2 in Table 4) and have corrected them in the whole manuscript. Figures 4 and 5 have been adjusted accordingly. These adjustments have no effect on the presentation of the figures or their discussion. The qualitative behaviour and the results remain consistent and are not affected by these restatements.

Review Comments:

Reviewer #1:

1: "Author should also consider the pH of the environment as an important factor. Mostly these two microbe present in symbiotic in the oral cavity. In the oral cavity there is drop of the pH to acidic. Then how this drop of pH influence the mixed biofilm with respect to the morphology, physiology and antimicrobial resistance.":

We agree with the reviewer that the pH of the environment is an important factor. Certainly, addressing the influence of pH on the mixed biofilm's morphology, physiology, and antimicrobial resistance is an intriguing consideration. While integrating pH as a factor could potentially enhance the depth of our study, the feasibility and potential complexity associated with its inclusion must be carefully considered. Given the complexity of the current model and the risk of over-fitting, a balanced approach is crucial. Extending the study to incorporate pH requires significant additional effort and might introduce complexities that could overshadow the primary focus of our research. Furthermore, the interaction between the pathogens extends beyond the oral cavity (see Kong et al. 2016, Kean et al. 2017, Lohse et al. 2018). We added the potential implications of pH variations on the interactions between these pathogens in diverse environments in the Discussion section. For this we have added paragraph 4 on page 14. This approach would acknowledge the significance of pH variations without compromising the current depth and focus of our study. This approach also avoids the risk of potential over-fitting and increased complexity, which does not necessarily lead to significantly better results. However, recognizing the importance of pH variation as a potential avenue for future investigation allows us to maintain a broad perspective without compromising the integrity of our current research.

2: "How the mixed biofilm of S. aureus and C. albicans can be fitted in the proposed model in the presence of the antibiotic and antifungal drugs.":

We agree with the reviewer that the presence of antibiotic and antifungal drugs is an important factor. In our study, we have indirectly addressed the interaction within the mixed biofilm of S. aureus and C. albicans in the presence of such drugs by incorporating a general factor, 'r', to signify the increased resistance observed when these pathogens coexist. This factor encapsulates the combined impact on resistance, encompassing both the influence on drug resistance and the heightened resistance to the immune system.

One could consider a potential extension of the model by delineating resistance increments (r1, r2, ...) to differentiate the resistance increments between the immune system and drugs. However such an extension could artificially inflate the complexity of our current model. Given the complexity and depth of the proposed model extension, incorporating distinct resistance increments for the immune system and drug resistance might introduce unnecessary intricacies without substantially enhancing the core findings of our research. Maintaining a balance between comprehensiveness and model simplicity is vital to ensure clarity and relevance in our study. Additionally, incorporating new parameters, such as r1, r2, ..., would necessitate comprehensive data to run accurate simulations. This level of granularity exceeds the intended scope of our study and might potentially obscure the primary focus.

For the purposes of our current study, we believe retaining the generalized factor 'r' appropriately captures the increased resistance observed within the mixed biofilm context. However, exploring the population dynamics of both pathogens under the influence of specific drugs presents an intriguing and promising outlook for future research. Recognizing its significance, we have included paragraph 4 on page 14.

3: "What about the EPS of biofilm matrix contribution by these microbes. On what ratio?":

We thank the reviewer for inquiring about the role of the extracellular polymeric substance (EPS) within the biofilm matrix of S. aureus and C. albicans and its impact within our proposed model. The biofilm matrix with its EPS indeed plays a critical role in biofilm formation, resistance to antimicrobial agents, and contributes to the unique attributes and virulence of biofilms.

In our study, we've indirectly examined the biofilm matrix's impact on the interactions within mixed biofilms of S. aureus and C. albicans. While acknowledging the crucial role of biological details, including EPS contribution, we've balanced the depth of biological detail with the focus on our overarching model to ensure clarity. The factor 'r' i.e. addresses increased resistance in the mixed biofilm, encapsulating various elements that contribute to this augmented resistance, potentially including effects from the biofilm matrix like EPS. In addition the parameter 'n' i.e. summarizes all available nutrients including potential nutrient reservoirs of the biofilm matrix. This approach aligns with our goal of understanding interactions within mixed biofilms while managing complexity.

In future studies one could further specify each factor that plays a vital role in the system by further splitting parameters i.e. r into r1, r2, ... and n into n1,n2,... However the approach brings its complications i.e. over-fitting as addressed in the response to point 1 and 2 of reviewer 1. Expanding into specific ratios of EPS contribution by S. aureus and C. albicans introduces complexities that could overshadow our model's primary objectives. We have now added paragraph 4 on page 14 to point out future study approaches and mention the EPS therein.

Reviewer #1 4. and Reviewer #2:

"How this study will benefit to develop antibiofilm strategy." and "[...] What practical application of this work does he see?":

We appreciate the reviewer’s inquiry regarding the practical implications and potential applications of our research in developing antibiofilm strategies.

In our study we identify non-universal benefits. Contrary to common assumptions, our research reveals that mixed-species biofilms are not universally beneficial for all participants under all conditions. Recognizing the nuanced and context-dependent nature of these interactions is crucial for devising targeted antibiofilm strategies.

We explore different treatment opportunities. The study identifies different states of the mixed-species biofilm, offering opportunities to explore interventions that shift the equilibrium towards more favorable conditions for medical treatments and host immune responses. These insights may guide the development of tailored antibiofilm strategies based on the specific conditions encountered, allowing for more effective and personalized treatment approaches.

To strengthen the argument of our paper we have included paragraph 1 and 4 as well as 2 sentences to paragraph 2 and 5 sentences to paragraph 3 of the conclusion section of our paper on page 16 and 17.

Once again, we extend our gratitude for your time and constructive feedback. We look forward to hearing from you regarding the revised manuscript.

Sincerely,

Sybille Dühring

sybille.duehring@uni-jena.de

References:

Eric F Kong et al. “Commensal Protection of Staphylococcus aureus against

Antimicrobials by Candida albicans Biofilm Matrix”. In: mBio 7.5 (2016),

e01365–16.

Ryan Kean et al. “Candida albicans mycofilms support Staphylococcus aureus

Colonization and Enhances Miconazole Resistance in Dual-Species Interactions”.

In: Frontiers in Microbiology 8 (2017), p. 258.

Matthew B Lohse et al. “Development and regulation of single-and multi-species

Candida albicans biofilms”. In: Nature Reviews Microbiology 16.1 (2018),

pp. 19–31. doi: 10.1038/nrmicro.2017.107.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

pone.0297307.s003.docx (14.2KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Geelsu Hwang

3 Jan 2024

Studying mixed-species biofilms of Candida albicans and Staphylococcus aureus using Evolutionary Game Theory

PONE-D-23-29022R1

Dear Dr. Dühring,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Geelsu Hwang, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

\\Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Congratulations to all the authors for their great work. The author has addressed all the raised comments point by point.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

**********

Acceptance letter

Geelsu Hwang

7 Feb 2024

PONE-D-23-29022R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Dühring,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Geelsu Hwang

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 File. Additional simulation results.

    (PDF)

    pone.0297307.s001.pdf (154.2KB, pdf)
    S2 File. Stability analysis of the five fixed points of the game.

    (PDF)

    pone.0297307.s002.pdf (887.7KB, pdf)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

    pone.0297307.s003.docx (14.2KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting information files.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES