Figure 6d shows quantitative ratios of some combinations 24 h after inoculation. Some results are in congruence with observations on chimerical bodies on NAG, i.e. R is dominant over F, and F dominates

over E. coli; in this case, however, F dominates absolutely, without rare cases of E. coli overgrowth. Similar is the dominance of M over E. coli (not shown). The proportions of R/F/ E. coli in principle also match the situation observed on agar. The mixture R/ E. coli, however, with equal representation of both types, differs markedly from chimeras where E. coli always outcompetes R and confines it in the center of body. Mixtures F/M and R/M (not shown) grow at roughly similar rates, Ipatasertib i.e. of no sign inhibition of M by F as observed on NAG. Chimera vs. colony The BB-94 interaction of chimerical bodies with single-clone colonies (Figure 6c) planted simultaneously at 5 mm distance depends usually on what material is contained Necrostatin-1 solubility dmso in the

chimera’s ruff – essentially the interaction follows patterns shown in Figures 5–10 (such a typical case is the interaction of R/ E. coli with R and F/ E. coli with M, Figure 6c, i and ii). Some exceptions, however, deserve attention: In case of R/F chimera interacting with E. coli (Figure 6c, iii) the result was not the chimera overgrown by E. coli (as in R- E. coli interaction. Figure 10a),

but E. coli was effectively repelled, obviously thanks to the F material residing in the center of the chimera. Also interaction of R/ E. coli chimera with the F body (Figure 6c, iv) led, as expected, to an inhibition of E. coli by the F neighbor; this, however, enabled the R material to escape to the periphery and to overgrow the F neighbor. Summary on chimeras The outcome of chimerical interactions on both NAG and MMA substrates can be summarized by 4 schemes of Thiamet G interactions (triangular schemes in Figure 6a, b; for simplicity, the white derivates W and Fw are not included – they behave analogously to their parents, R and F). Interactions, on NAG, in different settings, reveal a “rock – paper – scissors” relationship for two of four possible ternary settings: R, F, or E. coli and M, R, and E. coli (Figure 6a, scheme). In two remaining ternary combinations, M is always a loser (cf. also Table 2). The situation is different on MMA, where E. coli always wins the contest in chimeras, whereas F is an absolute loser (Figure 6b, scheme): we are rather confronted with a hierarchy E.