Many interactions in nature involve various defense mechanisms. To bypass these mechanisms, there are several counter defense techniques. Examples are provided by beta-lactam antibiotics produced by several fungi and Streptomycetes and, as a counter-adaptation, beta-lactamases (which open the beta-lactam ring) produced by several bacteria.
Another example can be found in Brassicaceae plants, which defend themselves by glucosinolates (GLSs). The stored GLSs are not yet toxic but are hydrolysed by plant myrosinases to isothiocyanates upon herbivory or tissue damage. Specialist herbivores of Brassicaceae have evolved specific counter-defenses. Some of them block myrosinases while others redirect the hydrolysis to form less toxic products (like nitriles).
Many organisms produce not a single defense chemical, but a mixture of them. An example is tea tree oil produced by a plant Melaleuca alternifolia. It is a mixture of multiple terpens and has a potent antimicrobial activity. Some bacteria, for example, Pseudomonas aeruginosa can transport these terpens out of the cell using efflux pumps. This mechanism is an effective counter-defense against all the mixture components.
But everything comes at a price – the counter-defenses imply metabolic costs. Thus, the question arises whether it is always beneficial. Moreover, it is not clear why specialist herbivores primarily choose a toxic habitat where they have to invest into detoxification. It is also open to debate what the benefits of defense chemical mixtures are over the specific defense chemicals.
We use game theory, modeling by differential equations and dynamic optimization to describe and explain such phenomena.