Global epistasis makes adaptation predictable despite sequence-level stochasticity

Science

Volumn 344, Issue 6191, 2014, Pages 1519-1522

  Kryazhimskiy, Sergey ^a,c   Rice, Daniel P ^a,c   Jerison, Elizabeth R ^b,c   Desai, Michael M ^a,b,c  

^a HARVARD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b HARVARD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c HARVARD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADAPTATION; EPISTASIS; EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY; GENOMICS; GENOTYPE; MUTATION; STOCHASTICITY; YEAST;

ARTICLE; EPISTASIS; GENE MUTATION; GENE SEQUENCE; GENOTYPE; NONHUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SACCHAROMYCES CEREVISIAE; ADAPTATION; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; DIRECTED MOLECULAR EVOLUTION; DNA SEQUENCE; FUNGAL GENE; FUNGAL GENOME; GENETICS; MOLECULAR EVOLUTION; MOLECULAR GENETICS; MUTATION; NUCLEOTIDE SEQUENCE; PHYSIOLOGY; REPRODUCTIVE FITNESS; STATISTICS;

ADAPTATION, PHYSIOLOGICAL; BASE SEQUENCE; DIRECTED MOLECULAR EVOLUTION; EPISTASIS, GENETIC; EVOLUTION, MOLECULAR; GENES, FUNGAL; GENETIC FITNESS; GENOME, FUNGAL; GENOTYPE; MODELS, GENETIC; MOLECULAR SEQUENCE ANNOTATION; MUTATION; SACCHAROMYCES CEREVISIAE; SEQUENCE ANALYSIS, DNA; STOCHASTIC PROCESSES;

EID: 84903291815     PISSN: 00368075     EISSN: 10959203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1126/science.1250939     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. R. J. Woods et al., Science 331, 1433-1436 (2011).
2. Z. D. Blount, C. Z. Borland, R. E. Lenski, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 105, 7899-7906 (2008).
3. J. D. Bloom, L. I. Gong, D. Baltimore, Science 328, 1272-1275 (2010).
4. D. R. Rokyta et al., PLOS Genet. 7, e1002075 (2011).
5. C. L. Burch, L. Chao, Nature 406, 625-628 (2000).
6. D. M. Weinreich, N. F. Delaney, M. A. Depristo, D. L. Hartl, Science 312, 111-114 (2006).
7. S. J. Gould, Wonderful Life (Norton, New York, 1989).
8. A. I. Khan, D. M. Dinh, D. Schneider, R. E. Lenski, T. F. Cooper, Science 332, 1193-1196 (2011).
9. H.-H. Chou, H.-C. Chiu, N. F. Delaney, D. Segrè, C. J. Marx, Science 332, 1190-1192 (2011).
10. H.-H. Chou, J. Berthet, C. J. Marx, PLOS Genet. 5, e1000652 (2009).
11. J. E. Barrick, M. R. Kauth, C. C. Strelioff, R. E. Lenski, Mol. Biol. Evol. 27, 1338-1347 (2010).
12. L. Perfeito, A. Sousa, T. Bataillon, I. Gordo, Evolution 68, 150-162 (2014).
13. M. J. Wiser, N. Ribeck, R. E. Lenski, Science 342, 1364-1367 (2013).
14. O. Tenaillon et al., Science 335, 457-461 (2012).
15. G. I. Lang, D. Botstein, M. M. Desai, Genetics 188, 647-661 (2011).
16. See supplementary materials on Science Online.
17. M. Travisano, J. A. Mongold, A. F. Bennett, R. E. Lenski, Science 267, 87-90 (1995).
18. S. Kryazhimskiy, G. Tkačik, J. B. Plotkin, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 106, 18638-18643 (2009).
19. Note that this includes two founders inadvertently picked from the same diversified population (16).
20. J. P. Bollback, J. P. Huelsenbeck, Mol. Biol. Evol. 24, 1397-1406 (2007).
21. G. I. Lang et al., Nature 500, 571-574 (2013).
22. This result is also surprising in the diminishing-returns models because we expect fewer beneficial mutations to fix in high-fitness backgrounds where they provide a smaller selective advantage. This puzzle is related to the observation (25) that fixation rates in long-term evolution of E. coli are constant through time despite a declining rate of fitness increase. However, our result would be consistent with the diminishing-returns models if the beneficial mutation rate is also higher in high-fitness backgrounds.
23. See (16) for a power analysis.
24. These are likely enriched for the most strongly beneficial mutations. Hence, if modular epistasis is prevalent, it is among these mutations that we expect the strongest trend.
25. J. E. Barrick et al., Nature 461, 1243-1247 (2009).