Robustness–epistasis link shapes the fitness landscape of a randomly drifting protein

The distribution of fitness effects of protein mutations is still unknown. Of particular interest is whether accumulating deleterious mutations interact, and how the resulting epistatic effects shape the protein’s fitness landscape. Here we apply a model system in which bacterial fitness correlates with the enzymatic activity of TEM-1 β-lactamase (antibiotic degradation). Subjecting TEM-1 to random mutational drift and purifying selection (to purge deleterious mutations) produced changes in its fitness landscape indicative of negative epistasis; that is, the combined deleterious effects of mutations were, on average, larger than expected from the multiplication of their individual effects. As observed in computational systems, negative epistasis was tightly associated with higher tolerance to mutations (robustness). Thus, under a low selection pressure, a large fraction of mutations was initially tolerated (high robustness), but as mutations accumulated, their fitness toll increased, resulting in the observed negative epistasis. These findings, supported by FoldX stability computations of the mutational effects, prompt a new model in which the mutational robustness (or neutrality) observed in proteins, and other biological systems, is due primarily to a stability margin, or threshold, that buffers the deleterious physico-chemical effects of mutations on fitness. Threshold robustness is inherently epistatic—once the stability threshold is exhausted, the deleterious effects of mutations become fully pronounced, thereby making proteins far less robust than generally assumed.

[1]  A. Horovitz,et al.  Double-mutant cycles: a powerful tool for analyzing protein structure and function. , 1996, Folding & design.

[2]  L. Serrano,et al.  Predicting changes in the stability of proteins and protein complexes: a study of more than 1000 mutations. , 2002, Journal of molecular biology.

[3]  M. DePristo,et al.  Missense meanderings in sequence space: a biophysical view of protein evolution , 2005, Nature Reviews Genetics.

[4]  R. Siegel,et al.  Generation of large libraries of random mutants in Bacillus subtilis by PCR-based plasmid multimerization. , 1997, BioTechniques.

[5]  G. Georgiou,et al.  Quantitative analysis of the effect of the mutation frequency on the affinity maturation of single chain Fv antibodies. , 2000, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[6]  M. Lynch,et al.  The mutational meltdown in asexual populations. , 1993, The Journal of heredity.

[7]  W. Lim,et al.  Deciphering the message in protein sequences: tolerance to amino acid substitutions. , 1990, Science.

[8]  Juno Choe,et al.  Protein tolerance to random amino acid change. , 2004, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[9]  C. Pál,et al.  An integrated view of protein evolution , 2006, Nature Reviews Genetics.

[10]  A. Kondrashov Deleterious mutations and the evolution of sexual reproduction , 1988, Nature.

[11]  B. Charlesworth,et al.  Unravelling the Evolutionary Advantage of Sex : a Commentary on ' Mutation–selection Balance and the Evolutionary Advantage of Sex and Recombination ' , 2022 .

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

[13]  Rafael Sanjuán,et al.  Mechanisms of genetic robustness in RNA viruses , 2006, EMBO reports.

[14]  J. Petrosino,et al.  Amino acid sequence determinants of beta-lactamase structure and activity. , 1996, Journal of molecular biology.

[15]  Günter P. Wagner,et al.  Genetic measurement theory of epistatic effects , 2004, Genetica.

[16]  A. Wagner Distributed robustness versus redundancy as causes of mutational robustness. , 2005, BioEssays : news and reviews in molecular, cellular and developmental biology.

[17]  Christina Kiel,et al.  The ubiquitin domain superfold: structure-based sequence alignments and characterization of binding epitopes. , 2006, Journal of molecular biology.

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

[19]  M. Wade,et al.  Epistasis and the Evolutionary Process , 2000 .

[20]  U. Sauer,et al.  Tolerance of T4 lysozyme to proline substitutions within the long interdomain alpha-helix illustrates the adaptability of proteins to potentially destabilizing lesions. , 1991, The Journal of biological chemistry.

[21]  R. B. Azevedo,et al.  Sexual reproduction selects for robustness and negative epistasis in artificial gene networks , 2006, Nature.

[22]  Peter S. Shenkin,et al.  Amino Acid Sequence Determinants of β-Lactamase Structure and Activity , 1996 .

[23]  C. Wilke,et al.  Interaction between directional epistasis and average mutational effects , 2000, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.