A. FLO1 expression comes at a fitness cost. Strain KV210 (FLO1 driven by the inducible GAL1 promoter) shows a significant (3%) fitness defect compared to strain KV22 (flo1−) when grown in YPGal medium, but not in YPD (where FLO1 is not induced, control). A significant (1.5%) fitness defect was also observed when a naturally flocculating FLO1+ EM93 strain was compared to its flo1 null mutant, demonstrating that natural expression of FLO1 also has a fitness cost. For all these experiments, the medium was supplemented with mannose (to block flocculation and only measure the cost associated with FLO1 expression, not flocculation; see text). Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals. B. FLO1 cells preferentially aggregate together. Cultures were inoculated with equal proportions of flocculating (KV210) and non-flocculating (KV22) cells. After induction of flocculation, the relative proportion of flocculating and non-flocculating cells in the planktonic and flocculating cell populations was measured, revealing an unequal distribution, with flocculating cells preferentially embedded within flocs, and the majority of nonflocculent “cheater” cells in the planktonic phase (P < 0.01). In YPD medium (no FLO1 expression, no flocculation), the fractions of both cell types remain equal. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals. C. Fluorescence microscopy of flocs obtained from mixed cultures shows that flocs consist of perfectly mixed flocculent cells (KV210, Cyan) and non-flocculent “cheater” cells (KV22, Red). However, the outermost layer of the floc is almost exclusively made up out of nonflocculent cells (arrow). D. Mixed cultures of FLO1-expressing and flo1− cheater cells subjected to consecutive cycles of stress treatments show a gradual increase in FLO1-expressing cells. Cultures were inoculated with equal proportions of flocculating (KV210) and non-flocculating (flo1− KV22) cells. After 20 hours of growth in YPGal medium (to induce FLO1 expression in KV210), the mixed cultures were subjected to a 4h amphotericin treatment. After the treatment, the dead planktonic cells were removed. The remaining cells were washed, deflocculated and used to re-inoculate a fresh YPGal culture, which was again subjected to stress treatment after 20 h of growth. In these 20 hours, FLO1+ cells went through an average of 8.9 cell doublings, while flo1− cheaters divided about 9.4 times. After each cycle, the ratio of FLO1-expressing cells to flo1− cheater cells increases, indicating that these conditions strongly select for FLO1-expressing cells. A similar trend was observed when naturally flocculating (FLO1-expressing) and non-flocculating (FLO1-silent) EM93 strains were used (not shown). Error bars represent standard deviations. E. S. paradoxus and S. cerevisiae cells expressing FLO1 co-flocculate and exclude S. cerevisiae flo1− “cheater” cells. Three strains were co-cultivated: S. cerevisiae S288C (flo1−); S. cerevisiae KV210 (FLO1+) and a recombinant S. paradoxus strain that expresses the S. cerevisiae FLO1 gene. The graph shows the relative enrichment in flocs (green) and depletion in the planktonic fraction (yellow) of the two flocculent strains relative to the nonflocculent S288C wild-type cells (p < 0.01). FLO1-expressing S. cerevisiae and S. paradoxus cells co-flocculate and exclude S. cerevisiae cells that do not express FLO1, despite the closer genetic relatedness of the two S. cerevisiae strains. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals.