The strength of genetic interactions scales weakly with mutational effects

BackgroundGenetic interactions pervade every aspect of biology, from evolutionary theory, where they determine the accessibility of evolutionary paths, to medicine, where they can contribute to complex genetic diseases. Until very recently, studies on epistatic interactions have been based on a handful of mutations, providing at best anecdotal evidence about the frequency and the typical strength of genetic interactions. In this study, we analyze a publicly available dataset that contains the growth rates of over five million double knockout mutants of the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae.ResultsWe discuss a geometric definition of epistasis that reveals a simple and surprisingly weak scaling law for the characteristic strength of genetic interactions as a function of the effects of the mutations being combined. We then utilized this scaling to quantify the roughness of naturally occurring fitness landscapes. Finally, we show how the observed roughness differs from what is predicted by Fisher's geometric model of epistasis, and discuss the consequences for evolutionary dynamics.ConclusionsAlthough epistatic interactions between specific genes remain largely unpredictable, the statistical properties of an ensemble of interactions can display conspicuous regularities and be described by simple mathematical laws. By exploiting the amount of data produced by modern high-throughput techniques, it is now possible to thoroughly test the predictions of theoretical models of genetic interactions and to build informed computational models of evolution on realistic fitness landscapes.

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

[2]  M. Wade.  OF SMALL POPULATIONS , 1982 .

[3]  James B. Anderson,et al.  Incipient speciation by divergent adaptation and antagonistic epistasis in yeast , 2007, Nature.

[4]  A. Barabasi,et al.  Global organization of metabolic fluxes in the bacterium Escherichia coli , 2004, Nature.

[5]  J. Gore,et al.  Hidden randomness between fitness landscapes limits reverse evolution. , 2011, Physical review letters.

[6]  G. Church,et al.  Modular epistasis in yeast metabolism , 2005, Nature Genetics.

[7]  Robert P. St.Onge,et al.  Defining genetic interaction , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[8]  Rafael Sanjuán,et al.  Epistasis correlates to genomic complexity , 2006, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[9]  Nigel F. Delaney,et al.  Diminishing Returns Epistasis Among Beneficial Mutations Decelerates Adaptation , 2011, Science.

[10]  Huiming Ding,et al.  The synthetic genetic interaction spectrum of essential genes , 2005, Nature Genetics.

[11]  Sean R. Collins,et al.  Conservation and Rewiring of Functional Modules Revealed by an Epistasis Map in Fission Yeast , 2008, Science.

[12]  Jeff Gore,et al.  Synthetic approaches to understanding biological constraints. , 2012, Current opinion in chemical biology.

[13]  B. Andrews,et al.  Systematic mapping of genetic interaction networks. , 2009, Annual review of genetics.

[14]  Ritsert C. Jansen,et al.  Studying complex biological systems using multifactorial perturbation , 2003, Nature Reviews Genetics.

[15]  Gary D Bader,et al.  The Genetic Landscape of a Cell , 2010, Science.

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

[17]  Brandon Barker,et al.  Dynamic epistasis for different alleles of the same gene , 2012, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[18]  E. Stone,et al.  The genetics of quantitative traits: challenges and prospects , 2009, Nature Reviews Genetics.

[19]  Lior Pachter,et al.  Analysis of epistatic interactions and fitness landscapes using a new geometric approach , 2007, BMC Evolutionary Biology.

[20]  A. Barabasi,et al.  Network biology: understanding the cell's functional organization , 2004, Nature Reviews Genetics.

[21]  Sean R. Collins,et al.  A comprehensive strategy enabling high-resolution functional analysis of the yeast genome , 2008, Nature Methods.

[22]  Kristen K. Dang,et al.  Sexual reproduction selects for robustness and negative epistasis in artificial gene networks , 2006, Nature.

[23]  S. Oliver,et al.  Plasticity of genetic interactions in metabolic networks of yeast , 2007, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[24]  D. Durocher,et al.  Significant conservation of synthetic lethal genetic interaction networks between distantly related eukaryotes , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[25]  M. Ashburner,et al.  Gene Ontology: tool for the unification of biology , 2000, Nature Genetics.

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

[27]  P. Phillips.  Epistasis — the essential role of gene interactions in the structure and evolution of genetic systems , 2008, Nature Reviews Genetics.

[28]  D. J. Kiviet,et al.  Empirical fitness landscapes reveal accessible evolutionary paths , 2007, Nature.

[29]  J. Ott,et al.  Mathematical multi-locus approaches to localizing complex human trait genes , 2003, Nature Reviews Genetics.

[30]  Nigel F. Delaney,et al.  Darwinian Evolution Can Follow Only Very Few Mutational Paths to Fitter Proteins , 2006, Science.

[31]  Ben Lehner,et al.  Evolutionary plasticity of genetic interaction networks , 2008, Nature Genetics.

[32]  Olivier Tenaillon,et al.  The Evolution of Epistasis and Its Links With Genetic Robustness, Complexity and Drift in a Phenotypic Model of Adaptation , 2009, Genetics.

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

[34]  Marc O. Ernst.  Decisions Made Better , 2010, Science.

[35]  D. Weinreich,et al.  RAPID EVOLUTIONARY ESCAPE BY LARGE POPULATIONS FROM LOCAL FITNESS PEAKS IS LIKELY IN NATURE , 2005, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[36]  Marcus W Feldman,et al.  The rate at which asexual populations cross fitness valleys. , 2009, Theoretical population biology.

[37]  Rafael Sanjuán,et al.  A Network Model for the Correlation between Epistasis and Genomic Complexity , 2008, PloS one.

[38]  Jeffrey E. Barrick,et al.  Second-Order Selection for Evolvability in a Large Escherichia coli Population , 2011, Science.

[39]  H. Girardey,et al.  Trajectories , 2009, Handbook of Critical Agrarian Studies.

[40]  Gary D Bader,et al.  Quantitative analysis of fitness and genetic interactions in yeast on a genome scale , 2010, Nature Methods.

[41]  R. Lenski,et al.  Negative Epistasis Between Beneficial Mutations in an Evolving Bacterial Population , 2011, Science.

[42]  R. Watson,et al.  PERSPECTIVE: SIGN EPISTASIS AND GENETIC COSTRAINT ON EVOLUTIONARY TRAJECTORIES , 2005, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

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

[44]  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.

[45]  S. Oliver,et al.  An integrated approach to characterize genetic interaction networks in yeast metabolism , 2011, Nature Genetics.

[46]  H. A. Orr,et al.  The genetic theory of adaptation: a brief history , 2005, Nature Reviews Genetics.

[47]  A. Wagner.  Gene duplications, robustness and evolutionary innovations. , 2008, BioEssays : news and reviews in molecular, cellular and developmental biology.

[48]  Thomas Lenormand,et al.  Distributions of epistasis in microbes fit predictions from a fitness landscape model , 2007, Nature Genetics.

[49]  Eduardo D Sontag,et al.  Mechanism-independent method for predicting response to multidrug combinations in bacteria , 2012, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[50]  Sergey Kryazhimskiy,et al.  The dynamics of adaptation on correlated fitness landscapes , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[51]  J. Gore,et al.  SLOWLY SWITCHING BETWEEN ENVIRONMENTS FACILITATES REVERSE EVOLUTION IN SMALL POPULATIONS , 2011, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.