On the feasibility of saltational evolution

Is evolution always gradual or can it make leaps? We examine a mathematical model of an evolutionary process on a fitness landscape and obtain analytic solutions for the probability of multi-mutation leaps, that is, several mutations occurring simultaneously, within a single generation in one genome, and being fixed all together in the evolving population. The results indicate that, for typical, empirically observed combinations of the parameters of the evolutionary process, namely, effective population size, mutation rate, and distribution of selection coefficients of mutations, the probability of a multi-mutation leap is low, and accordingly, the contribution of such leaps is minor at best. However, we show that, taking sign epistasis into account, leaps could become an important factor of evolution in cases of substantially elevated mutation rates, such as stress-induced mutagenesis in microbes. We hypothesize that stress-induced mutagenesis is an evolvable adaptive strategy.Comment: Extended version, in particular, the section is added on non-equilibrium model of stress-induced mutagenesi

The fundamental units, processes and patterns of evolution, and the Tree of Life conundrum

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The elucidation of the dominant role of horizontal gene transfer (HGT) in the evolution of prokaryotes led to a severe crisis of the Tree of Life (TOL) concept and intense debates on this subject.</p> <p>Concept</p> <p>Prompted by the crisis of the TOL, we attempt to define the primary units and the fundamental patterns and processes of evolution. We posit that replication of the genetic material is the singular fundamental biological process and that replication with an error rate below a certain threshold both enables and necessitates evolution by drift and selection. Starting from this proposition, we outline a general concept of evolution that consists of three major precepts.</p> <p>1. The primary agency of evolution consists of Fundamental Units of Evolution (FUEs), that is, units of genetic material that possess a substantial degree of evolutionary independence. The FUEs include both bona fide selfish elements such as viruses, viroids, transposons, and plasmids, which encode some of the information required for their own replication, and regular genes that possess quasi-independence owing to their distinct selective value that provides for their transfer between ensembles of FUEs (genomes) and preferential replication along with the rest of the recipient genome.</p> <p>2. The history of replication of a genetic element without recombination is isomorphously represented by a directed tree graph (an arborescence, in the graph theory language). Recombination within a FUE is common between very closely related sequences where homologous recombination is feasible but becomes negligible for longer evolutionary distances. In contrast, shuffling of FUEs occurs at all evolutionary distances. Thus, a tree is a natural representation of the evolution of an individual FUE on the macro scale, but not of an ensemble of FUEs such as a genome.</p> <p>3. The history of life is properly represented by the "forest" of evolutionary trees for individual FUEs (Forest of Life, or FOL). Search for trends and patterns in the FOL is a productive direction of study that leads to the delineation of ensembles of FUEs that evolve coherently for a certain time span owing to a shared history of vertical inheritance or horizontal gene transfer; these ensembles are commonly known as genomes, taxa, or clades, depending on the level of analysis. A small set of genes (the universal genetic core of life) might show a (mostly) coherent evolutionary trend that transcends the entire history of cellular life forms. However, it might not be useful to denote this trend "the tree of life", or organismal, or species tree because neither organisms nor species are fundamental units of life.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>A logical analysis of the units and processes of biological evolution suggests that the natural fundamental unit of evolution is a FUE, that is, a genetic element with an independent evolutionary history. Evolution of a FUE on the macro scale is naturally represented by a tree. Only the full compendium of trees for individual FUEs (the FOL) is an adequate depiction of the evolution of life. Coherent evolution of FUEs over extended evolutionary intervals is a crucial aspect of the history of life but a "species" or "organismal" tree is not a fundamental concept.</p> <p>Reviewers</p> <p>This articles was reviewed by Valerian Dolja, W. Ford Doolittle, Nicholas Galtier, and William Martin</p

Is evolution Darwinian or/and Lamarckian?

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The year 2009 is the 200^thanniversary of the publication of Jean-Bapteste Lamarck's <it>Philosophie Zoologique </it>and the 150^thanniversary of Charles Darwin's <it>On the Origin of Species</it>. Lamarck believed that evolution is driven primarily by non-randomly acquired, beneficial phenotypic changes, in particular, those directly affected by the use of organs, which Lamarck believed to be inheritable. In contrast, Darwin assigned a greater importance to random, undirected change that provided material for natural selection.</p> <p>The concept</p> <p>The classic Lamarckian scheme appears untenable owing to the non-existence of mechanisms for direct reverse engineering of adaptive phenotypic characters acquired by an individual during its life span into the genome. However, various evolutionary phenomena that came to fore in the last few years, seem to fit a more broadly interpreted (quasi)Lamarckian paradigm. The prokaryotic CRISPR-Cas system of defense against mobile elements seems to function via a bona fide Lamarckian mechanism, namely, by integrating small segments of viral or plasmid DNA into specific loci in the host prokaryote genome and then utilizing the respective transcripts to destroy the cognate mobile element DNA (or RNA). A similar principle seems to be employed in the piRNA branch of RNA interference which is involved in defense against transposable elements in the animal germ line. Horizontal gene transfer (HGT), a dominant evolutionary process, at least, in prokaryotes, appears to be a form of (quasi)Lamarckian inheritance. The rate of HGT and the nature of acquired genes depend on the environment of the recipient organism and, in some cases, the transferred genes confer a selective advantage for growth in that environment, meeting the Lamarckian criteria. Various forms of stress-induced mutagenesis are tightly regulated and comprise a universal adaptive response to environmental stress in cellular life forms. Stress-induced mutagenesis can be construed as a quasi-Lamarckian phenomenon because the induced genomic changes, although random, are triggered by environmental factors and are beneficial to the organism.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Both Darwinian and Lamarckian modalities of evolution appear to be important, and reflect different aspects of the interaction between populations and the environment.</p> <p>Reviewers</p> <p>this article was reviewed by Juergen Brosius, Valerian Dolja, and Martijn Huynen. For complete reports, see the <b>Reviewers' reports </b>section.</p

The common ancestry of life

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>It is common belief that all cellular life forms on earth have a common origin. This view is supported by the universality of the genetic code and the universal conservation of multiple genes, particularly those that encode key components of the translation system. A remarkable recent study claims to provide a formal, homology independent test of the Universal Common Ancestry hypothesis by comparing the ability of a common-ancestry model and a multiple-ancestry model to predict sequences of universally conserved proteins.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We devised a computational experiment on a concatenated alignment of universally conserved proteins which shows that the purported demonstration of the universal common ancestry is a trivial consequence of significant sequence similarity between the analyzed proteins. The nature and origin of this similarity are irrelevant for the prediction of "common ancestry" of by the model-comparison approach. Thus, homology (common origin) of the compared proteins remains an inference from sequence similarity rather than an independent property demonstrated by the likelihood analysis.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>A formal demonstration of the Universal Common Ancestry hypothesis has not been achieved and is unlikely to be feasible in principle. Nevertheless, the evidence in support of this hypothesis provided by comparative genomics is overwhelming.</p> <p>Reviewers</p> <p>this article was reviewed by William Martin, Ivan Iossifov (nominated by Andrey Rzhetsky) and Arcady Mushegian. For the complete reviews, see the Reviewers' Report section.</p

Comparable contributions of structural-functional constraints and expression level to the rate of protein sequence evolution

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Proteins show a broad range of evolutionary rates. Understanding the factors that are responsible for the characteristic rate of evolution of a given protein arguably is one of the major goals of evolutionary biology. A long-standing general assumption used to be that the evolution rate is, primarily, determined by the specific functional constraints that affect the given protein. These constrains were traditionally thought to depend both on the specific features of the protein's structure and its biological role. The advent of systems biology brought about new types of data, such as expression level and protein-protein interactions, and unexpectedly, a variety of correlations between protein evolution rate and these variables have been observed. The strongest connections by far were repeatedly seen between protein sequence evolution rate and the expression level of the respective gene. It has been hypothesized that this link is due to the selection for the robustness of the protein structure to mistranslation-induced misfolding that is particularly important for highly expressed proteins and is the dominant determinant of the sequence evolution rate.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>This work is an attempt to assess the relative contributions of protein domain structure and function, on the one hand, and expression level on the other hand, to the rate of sequence evolution. To this end, we performed a genome-wide analysis of the effect of the fusion of a pair of domains in multidomain proteins on the difference in the domain-specific evolutionary rates. The mistranslation-induced misfolding hypothesis would predict that, within multidomain proteins, fused domains, on average, should evolve at substantially closer rates than the same domains in different proteins because, within a mutlidomain protein, all domains are translated at the same rate. We performed a comprehensive comparison of the evolutionary rates of mammalian and plant protein domains that are either joined in multidomain proteins or contained in distinct proteins. Substantial homogenization of evolutionary rates in multidomain proteins was, indeed, observed in both animals and plants, although highly significant differences between domain-specific rates remained. The contributions of the translation rate, as determined by the effect of the fusion of a pair of domains within a multidomain protein, and intrinsic, domain-specific structural-functional constraints appear to be comparable in magnitude.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Fusion of domains in a multidomain protein results in substantial homogenization of the domain-specific evolutionary rates but significant differences between domain-specific evolution rates remain. Thus, the rate of translation and intrinsic structural-functional constraints both exert sizable and comparable effects on sequence evolution.</p> <p>Reviewers</p> <p>This article was reviewed by Sergei Maslov, Dennis Vitkup, Claus Wilke (nominated by Orly Alter), and Allan Drummond (nominated by Joel Bader). For the full reviews, please go to the Reviewers' Reports section.</p

Duplicated genes evolve slower than singletons despite the initial rate increase

BACKGROUND: Gene duplication is an important mechanism that can lead to the emergence of new functions during evolution. The impact of duplication on the mode of gene evolution has been the subject of several theoretical and empirical comparative-genomic studies. It has been shown that, shortly after the duplication, genes seem to experience a considerable relaxation of purifying selection. RESULTS: Here we demonstrate two opposite effects of gene duplication on evolutionary rates. Sequence comparisons between paralogs show that, in accord with previous observations, a substantial acceleration in the evolution of paralogs occurs after duplication, presumably due to relaxation of purifying selection. The effect of gene duplication on evolutionary rate was also assessed by sequence comparison between orthologs that have paralogs (duplicates) and those that do not (singletons). It is shown that, in eukaryotes, duplicates, on average, evolve significantly slower than singletons. Eukaryotic ortholog evolutionary rates for duplicates are also negatively correlated with the number of paralogs per gene and the strength of selection between paralogs. A tally of annotated gene functions shows that duplicates tend to be enriched for proteins with known functions, particularly those involved in signaling and related cellular processes; by contrast, singletons include an over-abundance of poorly characterized proteins. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that whether or not a gene duplicate is retained by selection depends critically on the pre-existing functional utility of the protein encoded by the ancestral singleton. Duplicates of genes of a higher biological import, which are subject to strong functional constraints on the sequence, are retained relatively more often. Thus, the evolutionary trajectory of duplicated genes appears to be determined by two opposing trends, namely, the post-duplication rate acceleration and the generally slow evolutionary rate owing to the high level of functional constraints