Extended Data Fig. 1: Agent-based modelling shows differences between weapons due to initial density of competitions, weapons depend differently on toxin secretion rate and that contact weapons better facilitate invasion than diffusible weapons at equivalent secretion rates.
From: The evolution of short- and long-range weapons for bacterial competition

a Quantification of competition outcomes for all tested densities (secretion rate: 100). Densities of 10 and 100 cells correspond respectively to ‘Low’ and ‘High’ starting densities shown in Fig. 1. Competitive advantage assesses the fold change in the attacker strain compared to its competitor from the beginning to end of the simulation (Methods). Horizontal lines indicate the mean from multiple simulations (n = 6). b Outcomes of competition simulations over a range of secretion rates and initial attacker frequencies (10%, 30%, 50%, 70%, 90%); initial density: 150 cells. Competitive advantage assesses the fold change in the attacker strain compared to its competitor from the beginning to end of the simulation (Methods). Horizontal lines indicate the mean from multiple simulations (n = 7). c Quantification of competition outcomes for invasions as a function of secretion rate. Invasion outcome is the same as competitive advantage (the fold change in the attacker strain compared to its competitor from the time of invasion to the end of the simulation). Horizontal lines indicate the mean from multiple simulations (n ≥ 6, see Supplementary Table 5 for more details; only invasions where the invader was still present at the end of the simulation were analyzed).