Phenotypic effect of mutations in evolving populations of RNA molecules

BackgroundThe secondary structure of folded RNA sequences is a good model to map phenotype onto genotype, as represented by the RNA sequence. Computational studies of the evolution of ensembles of RNA molecules towards target secondary structures yield valuable clues to the mechanisms behind adaptation of complex populations. The relationship between the space of sequences and structures, the organization of RNA ensembles at mutation-selection equilibrium, the time of adaptation as a function of the population parameters, the presence of collective effects in quasispecies, or the optimal mutation rates to promote adaptation all are issues that can be explored within this framework.ResultsWe investigate the effect of microscopic mutations on the phenotype of RNA molecules during their in silico evolution and adaptation. We calculate the distribution of the effects of mutations on fitness, the relative fractions of beneficial and deleterious mutations and the corresponding selection coefficients for populations evolving under different mutation rates. Three different situations are explored: the mutation-selection equilibrium (optimized population) in three different fitness landscapes, the dynamics during adaptation towards a goal structure (adapting population), and the behavior under periodic population bottlenecks (perturbed population).ConclusionsThe ratio between the number of beneficial and deleterious mutations experienced by a population of RNA sequences increases with the value of the mutation rate μ at which evolution proceeds. In contrast, the selective value of mutations remains almost constant, independent of μ, indicating that adaptation occurs through an increase in the amount of beneficial mutations, with little variations in the average effect they have on fitness. Statistical analyses of the distribution of fitness effects reveal that small effects, either beneficial or deleterious, are well described by a Pareto distribution. These results are robust under changes in the fitness landscape, remarkably when, in addition to selecting a target secondary structure, specific subsequences or low-energy folds are required. A population perturbed by bottlenecks behaves similarly to an adapting population, struggling to return to the optimized state. Whether it can survive in the long run or whether it goes extinct depends critically on the length of the time interval between bottlenecks.

[1]  A. Agrawal,et al.  Genetic loads under fitness‐dependent mutation rates , 2002 .

[2]  G. Bell,et al.  Mutations of intermediate effect are responsible for adaptation in evolving Pseudomonas fluorescens populations , 2006, Biology Letters.

[3]  E. Domingo,et al.  Beneficial effects of population bottlenecks in an RNA virus evolving at increased error rate. , 2008, Journal of molecular biology.

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

[5]  E. Domingo,et al.  RNA virus mutations and fitness for survival. , 1997, Annual review of microbiology.

[6]  P. Schuster Prediction of RNA secondary structures: from theory to models and real molecules , 2006 .

[7]  M. Huynen,et al.  Smoothness within ruggedness: the role of neutrality in adaptation. , 1996, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[8]  Rafael Sanjuán,et al.  The distribution of fitness effects caused by single-nucleotide substitutions in an RNA virus. , 2004, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[9]  R. Lande The response to selection on major and minor mutations affecting a metrical trait , 1983, Heredity.

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

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

[12]  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.

[13]  S. Manrubia,et al.  On the structural repertoire of pools of short, random RNA sequences. , 2008, Journal of theoretical biology.

[14]  R. Kassen,et al.  Distribution of fitness effects among beneficial mutations before selection in experimental populations of bacteria , 2006, Nature Genetics.

[15]  E. Leigh,et al.  Natural Selection and Mutability , 1970, The American Naturalist.

[16]  Elizabeth C. Theil,et al.  Epochal Evolution Shapes the Phylodynamics of Interpandemic Influenza A (H3N2) in Humans , 2006, Science.

[17]  E. Domingo,et al.  Resistance of virus to extinction on bottleneck passages: Study of a decaying and fluctuating pattern of fitness loss , 2003, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[18]  E. Domingo,et al.  Modeling Viral Genome Fitness Evolution Associated with Serial Bottleneck Events: Evidence of Stationary States of Fitness , 2002, Journal of Virology.

[19]  R. Kaplan Evolutionary adjustment of spontaneous mutation rates , 2004, Humangenetik.

[20]  Claus O. Wilke,et al.  Adaptive evolution on neutral networks , 2001, Bulletin of mathematical biology.

[21]  T. Lenormand,et al.  THE FITNESS EFFECT OF MUTATIONS ACROSS ENVIRONMENTS: A SURVEY IN LIGHT OF FITNESS LANDSCAPE MODELS , 2006, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

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

[23]  J. D. de Visser,et al.  Limits to adaptation in asexual populations , 2005, Journal of evolutionary biology.

[24]  D. Hartl,et al.  An Equivalence Principle for the Incorporation of Favorable Mutations in Asexual Populations , 2006, Science.

[25]  A. Buckling,et al.  The Distribution of Fitness Effects of Beneficial Mutations in Pseudomonas aeruginosa , 2009, PLoS genetics.

[26]  Michael Stich,et al.  Collective properties of evolving molecular quasispecies , 2007, BMC Evolutionary Biology.

[27]  Michael S. Waterman,et al.  On some new sequences generalizing the Catalan and Motzkin numbers , 1979, Discret. Math..

[28]  E. Domingo,et al.  Resistance to extinction of low fitness virus subjected to plaque-to-plaque transfers: diversification by mutation clustering. , 2002, Journal of molecular biology.

[29]  S. Manrubia,et al.  A trade-off between neutrality and adaptability limits the optimization of viral quasispecies. , 2009, Journal of theoretical biology.

[30]  J. Bull,et al.  Big-benefit mutations in a bacteriophage inhibited with heat. , 2000, Molecular biology and evolution.

[31]  C. Wilke,et al.  Compensatory mutations cause excess of antagonistic epistasis in RNA secondary structure folding , 2003, BMC Evolutionary Biology.

[32]  M. Kimura,et al.  The mutational load with epistatic gene interactions in fitness. , 1966, Genetics.

[33]  Paul Joyce,et al.  An empirical test of the mutational landscape model of adaptation using a single-stranded DNA virus , 2005, Nature Genetics.

[34]  J. Bull,et al.  Distributions of Beneficial Fitness Effects in RNA , 2005, Genetics.

[35]  Walter Fontana,et al.  Fast folding and comparison of RNA secondary structures , 1994 .

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

[37]  Martin T. Ferris,et al.  Beneficial Fitness Effects Are Not Exponential for Two Viruses , 2008, Journal of Molecular Evolution.

[38]  Y. Iwasa,et al.  Evolutionarily stable mutation rate in a periodically changing environment. , 1989, Genetics.