An empirical test of the mutational landscape model of adaptation using a single-stranded DNA virus

The primary impediment to formulating a general theory for adaptive evolution has been the unknown distribution of fitness effects for new beneficial mutations. By applying extreme value theory, Gillespie circumvented this issue in his mutational landscape model for the adaptation of DNA sequences, and Orr recently extended Gillespie's model, generating testable predictions regarding the course of adaptive evolution. Here we provide the first empirical examination of this model, using a single-stranded DNA bacteriophage related to φX174, and find that our data are consistent with Orr's predictions, provided that the model is adjusted to incorporate mutation bias. Orr's work suggests that there may be generalities in adaptive molecular evolution that transcend the biological details of a system, but we show that for the model to be useful as a predictive or inferential tool, some adjustments for the biology of the system will be necessary.

[1]  J. Bull,et al.  Experimental genomic evolution: extensive compensation for loss of DNA ligase activity in a virus. , 2002, Molecular biology and evolution.

[2]  J. Gillespie.  The causes of molecular evolution , 1991 .

[3]  H. A. Orr,et al.  A minimum on the mean number of steps taken in adaptive walks. , 2003, Journal of theoretical biology.

[4]  Mandy J. Haldane,et al.  A Mathematical Theory of Natural and Artificial Selection, Part V: Selection and Mutation , 1927, Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society.

[5]  H. A. Orr,et al.  ADAPTATION AND THE COST OF COMPLEXITY , 2000, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[6]  E. J. Gumbel,et al.  Statistics of Extremes. , 1960 .

[7]  J. Gillespie.  A simple stochastic gene substitution model. , 1983, Theoretical population biology.

[8]  H. A. Orr,et al.  THE POPULATION GENETICS OF ADAPTATION: THE DISTRIBUTION OF FACTORS FIXED DURING ADAPTIVE EVOLUTION , 1998, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[9]  J B Haldane,et al.  A MATHEMATICAL THEORY OF NATURAL AND ARTIFICIAL SELECTION. PART II THE INFLUENCE OF PARTIAL SELF‐FERTILISATION, INBREEDING, ASSORTATIVE MATING, AND SELECTIVE FERTILISATION ON THE COMPOSITION OF MENDELIAN POPULATIONS, AND ON NATURAL SELECTION. , 1924, Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society.

[10]  THE PROBABILITY THAT BENEFICIAL MUTATIONS ARE LOST IN POPULATIONS WITH PERIODIC BOTTLENECKS , 2001, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[11]  J. Thompson,et al.  CLUSTAL W: improving the sensitivity of progressive multiple sequence alignment through sequence weighting, position-specific gap penalties and weight matrix choice. , 1994, Nucleic acids research.

[12]  H. A. Orr,et al.  The distribution of fitness effects among beneficial mutations. , 2003, Genetics.

[13]  Clifford H. Taubes,et al.  Towards a theory of evolutionary adaptation , 2004, Genetica.

[14]  Ivan Saika-Voivod,et al.  Evaluating the impact of population bottlenecks in experimental evolution. , 2002, Genetics.

[15]  Zaid Abdo,et al.  Performance-based selection of likelihood models for phylogeny estimation. , 2003, Systematic biology.

[16]  J. Gillespie.  MOLECULAR EVOLUTION OVER THE MUTATIONAL LANDSCAPE , 1984, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[17]  M. Schwarz,et al.  Molecular phylogenetics of allodapine bees, with implications for the evolution of sociality and progressive rearing. , 2003, Systematic biology.

[18]  R. A. Fisher,et al.  The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection , 1931 .

[19]  H. A. Orr,et al.  THE POPULATION GENETICS OF ADAPTATION: THE ADAPTATION OF DNA SEQUENCES , 2002, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[20]  W. Ewens.  Selection and Mutation , 1968 .