Population Size Dependence of Fitness Effect Distribution and Substitution Rate Probed by Biophysical Model of Protein Thermostability

The predicted effect of effective population size on the distribution of fitness effects and substitution rate is critically dependent on the relationship between sequence and fitness. This highlights the importance of using models that are informed by the molecular biology, biochemistry, and biophysics of the evolving systems. We describe a computational model based on fundamental aspects of biophysics, the requirement for (most) proteins to be thermodynamically stable. Using this model, we find that differences in population size have minimal impact on the distribution of population-scaled fitness effects, as well as on the rate of molecular evolution. This is because larger populations result in selection for more stable proteins that are less affected by mutations. This reduction in the magnitude of the fitness effects almost exactly cancels the greater selective pressure resulting from the larger population size. Conversely, changes in the population size in either direction cause transient increases in the substitution rate. As differences in population size often correspond to changes in population size, this makes comparisons of substitution rates in different lineages difficult to interpret.

[1]  N. Grishin,et al.  From complete genomes to measures of substitution rate variability within and between proteins. , 2000, Genome research.

[2]  W. Li,et al.  Evidence for higher rates of nucleotide substitution in rodents than in man. , 1985, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[3]  M. Kimura,et al.  An introduction to population genetics theory , 1971 .

[4]  A. Rambaut,et al.  Determinants of rate variation in mammalian DNA sequence evolution , 1996, Journal of Molecular Evolution.

[5]  F. Arnold,et al.  Directed evolution converts subtilisin E into a functional equivalent of thermitase. , 1999, Protein engineering.

[6]  T. Ohta Slightly Deleterious Mutant Substitutions in Evolution , 1973, Nature.

[7]  Claus O. Wilke,et al.  Mistranslation-Induced Protein Misfolding as a Dominant Constraint on Coding-Sequence Evolution , 2008, Cell.

[8]  E. Shakhnovich,et al.  Soluble oligomerization provides a beneficial fitness effect on destabilizing mutations , 2011, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[9]  A. Eyre-Walker,et al.  The other side of the nearly neutral theory, evidence of slightly advantageous back-mutations , 2007, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[10]  Subhajyoti De,et al.  Cellular crowding imposes global constraints on the chemistry and evolution of proteomes , 2012, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[11]  M. Bolognesi,et al.  Function and Structure of Inherently Disordered Proteins This Review Comes from a Themed Issue on Proteins Edited Prediction of Non-folding Proteins and Regions Frequency of Disordered Regions Protein Evolution Partitioning Unstructured Proteins and Regions into Groups Involvement of Inherently Diso , 2022 .

[12]  M. Kimura Evolutionary Rate at the Molecular Level , 1968, Nature.

[13]  Alex Wong,et al.  Evolution of protein-coding genes in Drosophila. , 2008, Trends in genetics : TIG.

[14]  A. G. Day,et al.  Step-wise mutation of barnase to binase. A procedure for engineering increased stability of proteins and an experimental analysis of the evolution of protein stability. , 1993, Journal of molecular biology.

[15]  Motoo Kimura,et al.  Some Problems of Stochastic Processes in Genetics , 1957 .

[16]  A. Eyre-Walker,et al.  Quantifying the Variation in the Effective Population Size Within a Genome , 2011, Genetics.

[17]  David Haussler,et al.  Covariation in frequencies of substitution, deletion, transposition, and recombination during eutherian evolution. , 2003, Genome research.

[18]  M. Kimura,et al.  On the probability of fixation of mutant genes in a population. , 1962, Genetics.

[19]  R. Goldstein,et al.  Amino acid coevolution induces an evolutionary Stokes shift , 2012, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[20]  J. L. Cherry,et al.  Should we expect substitution rate to depend on population size? , 1998, Genetics.

[21]  Rory A. Fisher,et al.  XVII—The distribution of gene ratios for rare mutations , 1931 .

[22]  P. Keightley,et al.  The Effect of Variation in the Effective Population Size on the Rate of Adaptive Molecular Evolution in Eukaryotes , 2012, Genome biology and evolution.

[23]  J H Gillespie,et al.  The role of population size in molecular evolution. , 1999, Theoretical population biology.

[24]  Carlos Bustamante,et al.  Population Genetics of Molecular Evolution , 2005 .

[25]  D. Hartl,et al.  Misfolded proteins impose a dosage-dependent fitness cost and trigger a cytosolic unfolded protein response in yeast , 2010, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[26]  L. Bromham The genome as a life-history character: why rate of molecular evolution varies between mammal species , 2011, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[27]  Christoph Adami,et al.  Thermodynamic prediction of protein neutrality. , 2004, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[28]  F. Arnold,et al.  Directed evolution of a thermostable esterase. , 1998, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[29]  R. Goldstein,et al.  The evolution and evolutionary consequences of marginal thermostability in proteins , 2011, Proteins.

[30]  Gerald J. Wyckoff,et al.  Molecular evolution of functional genes on the mammalian Y chromosome. , 2002, Molecular biology and evolution.

[31]  Margaret E. Johnson,et al.  Nonspecific binding limits the number of proteins in a cell and shapes their interaction networks , 2010, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[32]  Jian-Rong Yang,et al.  Protein misinteraction avoidance causes highly expressed proteins to evolve slowly , 2012, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[33]  Sergei Maslov,et al.  Constraints imposed by non-functional protein–protein interactions on gene expression and proteome size , 2008, Molecular systems biology.

[34]  Emile Zuckerkandl,et al.  Evolutionary processes and evolutionary noise at the molecular level , 1976, Journal of Molecular Evolution.

[35]  Eugene I Shakhnovich,et al.  Lethal Mutagenesis in Viruses and Bacteria , 2009, Genetics.

[36]  T. Ohta THE NEARLY NEUTRAL THEORY OF MOLECULAR EVOLUTION , 1992 .

[37]  W. G. Hill,et al.  The effect of linkage on limits to artificial selection. , 1966, Genetical research.

[38]  B. Charlesworth,et al.  Molecular Evolution in Nonrecombining Regions of the Drosophila melanogaster Genome , 2012, Genome biology and evolution.

[39]  M. Whitlock,et al.  The probability of fixation in populations of changing size. , 1997, Genetics.

[40]  Adrian W. R. Serohijos,et al.  Protein biophysics explains why highly abundant proteins evolve slowly. , 2012, Cell reports.

[41]  T. Jukes,et al.  The neutral theory of molecular evolution. , 2000, Genetics.

[42]  J. Kingman A simple model for the balance between selection and mutation , 1978 .

[43]  B. Stoddard,et al.  Computational Thermostabilization of an Enzyme , 2005, Science.

[44]  C. Wilke,et al.  Thermodynamics of Neutral Protein Evolution , 2006, Genetics.

[45]  H. Dyson,et al.  Intrinsically unstructured proteins: re-assessing the protein structure-function paradigm. , 1999, Journal of molecular biology.

[46]  Laurent Duret,et al.  The GC Content of Primates and Rodents Genomes Is Not at Equilibrium: A Reply to Antezana , 2006, Journal of Molecular Evolution.

[47]  Laurent Duret,et al.  The Impact of Recombination on Nucleotide Substitutions in the Human Genome , 2008, PLoS genetics.

[48]  P. Keightley,et al.  A Comparison of Models to Infer the Distribution of Fitness Effects of New Mutations , 2013, Genetics.

[49]  G. Vriend,et al.  Engineering an enzyme to resist boiling. , 1998, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[50]  H. Ellegren,et al.  Fast Accumulation of Nonsynonymous Mutations on the Female-Specific W Chromosome in Birds , 2005, Journal of Molecular Evolution.

[51]  Richard A. Goldstein,et al.  Estimating the Distribution of Selection Coefficients from Phylogenetic Data Using Sitewise Mutation-Selection Models , 2012, Genetics.

[52]  F. Arnold,et al.  Protein stability promotes evolvability. , 2006, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[53]  Eugene I Shakhnovich,et al.  A biophysical protein folding model accounts for most mutational fitness effects in viruses , 2011, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[54]  B. Charlesworth Stabilizing Selection, Purifying Selection, and Mutational Bias in Finite Populations , 2013, Genetics.

[55]  E. Johansson,et al.  Three-dimensional structure of a mammalian purple acid phosphatase at 2.2 A resolution with a mu-(hydr)oxo bridged di-iron center. , 1999, Journal of molecular biology.

[56]  M. Kimura The Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution: Introduction , 1983 .

[57]  N. Moran,et al.  Accumulation of Deleterious Mutations in Endosymbionts: Muller’s Ratchet with Two Levels of Selection , 2000, The American Naturalist.

[58]  D. Hartl,et al.  Limits of adaptation: the evolution of selective neutrality. , 1985, Genetics.

[59]  Eugene I. Shakhnovich,et al.  Protein stability imposes limits on organism complexity and speed of molecular evolution , 2007, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[60]  Joost Schymkowitz,et al.  The stability effects of protein mutations appear to be universally distributed. , 2007, Journal of molecular biology.

[61]  R. Jernigan,et al.  Estimation of effective interresidue contact energies from protein crystal structures: quasi-chemical approximation , 1985 .

[62]  Ohta Tomoko Synonymous and nonsynonymous substitutions in mammalian genes and the nearly neutral theory , 2004, Journal of Molecular Evolution.

[63]  Lindell Bromham,et al.  Population size and molecular evolution on islands , 2005, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[64]  M. Long,et al.  Recombination yet inefficient selection along the Drosophila melanogaster subgroup's fourth chromosome. , 2010, Molecular biology and evolution.

[65]  J. Seger,et al.  Elevated rates of nonsynonymous substitution in island birds. , 2001, Molecular biology and evolution.

[66]  L. Bromham,et al.  Increased rates of sequence evolution in endosymbiotic bacteria and fungi with small effective population sizes. , 2003, Molecular biology and evolution.

[67]  D. Weinreich The Rates of Molecular Evolution in Rodent and Primate Mitochondrial DNA , 2001, Journal of Molecular Evolution.

[68]  M. Kimura A simple method for estimating evolutionary rates of base substitutions through comparative studies of nucleotide sequences , 1980, Journal of Molecular Evolution.

[69]  Paul D. Williams,et al.  Assessing the Accuracy of Ancestral Protein Reconstruction Methods , 2006, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[70]  Nikolay V Dokholyan,et al.  Natural selection against protein aggregation on self-interacting and essential proteins in yeast, fly, and worm. , 2008, Molecular biology and evolution.

[71]  H. Ross,et al.  Slower Tempo of Microevolution in Island Birds: Implications for Conservation Biology , 2009, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[72]  N. Moran Accelerated evolution and Muller's rachet in endosymbiotic bacteria. , 1996, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[73]  J. Moult,et al.  SNPs, protein structure, and disease , 2001, Human mutation.