Quantifying Organismal Complexity using a Population Genetic Approach

Background Various definitions of biological complexity have been proposed: the number of genes, cell types, or metabolic processes within an organism. As knowledge of biological systems has increased, it has become apparent that these metrics are often incongruent. Methodology Here we propose an alternative complexity metric based on the number of genetically uncorrelated phenotypic traits contributing to an organism's fitness. This metric, phenotypic complexity, is more objective than previous suggestions, as complexity is measured from a fundamental biological perspective, that of natural selection. We utilize a model linking the equilibrium fitness (drift load) of a population to phenotypic complexity. We then use results from viral evolution experiments to compare the phenotypic complexities of two viruses, the bacteriophage X174 and vesicular stomatitis virus, and to illustrate the consistency of our approach and its applicability. Conclusions/Significance Because Darwinian evolution through natural selection is the fundamental element unifying all biological organisms, we propose that our metric of complexity is potentially a more relevant metric than others, based on the count of artificially defined set of objects.

[1]  S. Elena,et al.  Size of genetic bottlenecks leading to virus fitness loss is determined by mean initial population fitness , 1995, Journal of virology.

[2]  L. Chao,et al.  Evolution by small steps and rugged landscapes in the RNA virus phi6. , 1999, Genetics.

[3]  R. Lenski,et al.  Test of synergistic interactions among deleterious mutations in bacteria , 1997, Nature.

[4]  Helen Pearson,et al.  Genetics: What is a gene? , 2006, Nature.

[5]  S. C. Lakhotia,et al.  What is a gene? , 1997 .

[6]  Evandro Agazzi,et al.  What is Complexity , 2002 .

[7]  B. Palsson,et al.  Parallel adaptive evolution cultures of Escherichia coli lead to convergent growth phenotypes with different gene expression states. , 2005, Genome research.

[8]  K. Arai,et al.  Replication of phi X174 dna with purified enzymes. I. Conversion of viral DNA to a supercoiled, biologically active duplex. , 1981, The Journal of biological chemistry.

[9]  J. Bull,et al.  Exceptional convergent evolution in a virus. , 1997, Genetics.

[10]  D. McShea PERSPECTIVE METAZOAN COMPLEXITY AND EVOLUTION: IS THERE A TREND? , 1996, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[11]  A. F. Bennett,et al.  Experimental tests of the roles of adaptation, chance, and history in evolution. , 1995, Science.

[12]  E Szathmáry,et al.  Molecular biology and evolution. Can genes explain biological complexity? , 2001, Science.

[13]  John J. Welch,et al.  MODULARITY AND THE COST OF COMPLEXITY , 2003, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[14]  Christina L. Burch,et al.  Epistasis and Its Relationship to Canalization in the RNA Virus φ6 , 2004, Genetics.

[15]  M G Reynolds,et al.  Compensatory evolution in rifampin-resistant Escherichia coli. , 2000, Genetics.

[16]  L. Altenberg,et al.  PERSPECTIVE: COMPLEX ADAPTATIONS AND THE EVOLUTION OF EVOLVABILITY , 1996, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[17]  A. D. Peters,et al.  Compensating for the meltdown: The critical effective size of a population with deleterious and compensatory mutations , 2003 .

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

[19]  Rafael Sanjuán,et al.  The contribution of epistasis to the architecture of fitness in an RNA virus. , 2004, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[20]  R. Punnett,et al.  The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection , 1930, Nature.

[21]  Art Poon,et al.  COMPENSATING FOR OUR LOAD OF MUTATIONS: FREEZING THE MELTDOWN OF SMALL POPULATIONS , 2000, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[22]  Stephen S Fong,et al.  Metabolic gene–deletion strains of Escherichia coli evolve to computationally predicted growth phenotypes , 2004, Nature Genetics.

[23]  G. Wagner,et al.  QUANTITATIVE VARIATION IN FINITE PARTHENOGENETIC POPULATIONS: WHAT STOPS MULLER'S RATCHET IN THE ABSENCE OF RECOMBINATION? , 1990, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[24]  M. Lynch,et al.  Mutation Accumulation in Populations of Varying Size: The Distribution of Mutational Effects for Fitness Correlates in Caenorhabditis elegans , 2004, Genetics.

[25]  Dominique Schneider,et al.  Tests of parallel molecular evolution in a long-term experiment with Escherichia coli. , 2006, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[26]  Ferenc Jordán,et al.  Can Genes Explain Biological Complexity? , 2001, Science.

[27]  A. Banerjee,et al.  Requirement for cyclophilin A for the replication of vesicular stomatitis virus New Jersey serotype. , 2003, The Journal of general virology.

[28]  L. Chao,et al.  Understanding the Evolutionary Fate of Finite Populations: The Dynamics of Mutational Effects , 2007, PLoS biology.

[29]  V. Pande,et al.  On the application of statistical physics to evolutionary biology. , 2009, Journal of theoretical biology.

[30]  C. Petropoulos,et al.  Evidence for Positive Epistasis in HIV-1 , 2004, Science.

[31]  C. Adami,et al.  Evolution of Biological Complexity , 2000, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA.

[32]  S. Carroll Chance and necessity: the evolution of morphological complexity and diversity , 2001, Nature.

[33]  B. Levin,et al.  Adaptation to the fitness costs of antibiotic resistance in Escherichia coli , 1997, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[34]  T. Lenormand,et al.  A GENERAL MULTIVARIATE EXTENSION OF FISHER'S GEOMETRICAL MODEL AND THE DISTRIBUTION OF MUTATION FITNESS EFFECTS ACROSS SPECIES , 2006, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

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