4.5 Article

RATES OF FITNESS DECLINE AND REBOUND SUGGEST PERVASIVE EPISTASIS

Journal

EVOLUTION
Volume 68, Issue 1, Pages 150-162

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/evo.12234

Keywords

Epistasis; fisher geometrical model; fitness recovery; mutation accumulation; rate of adaptation

Funding

  1. European Research Council under the European Community's Seventh Framework Programme (FP7)/ERC [260421-ECOADAPT]
  2. Laboratorios Associados de Oeiras/Instituto de Tecnologia Quimica e Biologica (LAO/ITQB)
  3. Fundacao para a Ciencia e Tecnologia (FCT)
  4. Danish Council for Independent Research

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Unraveling the factors that determine the rate of adaptation is a major question in evolutionary biology. One key parameter is the effect of a new mutation on fitness, which invariably depends on the environment and genetic background. The fate of a mutation also depends on population size, which determines the amount of drift it will experience. Here, we manipulate both population size and genotype composition and follow adaptation of 23 distinct Escherichia coli genotypes. These have previously accumulated mutations under intense genetic drift and encompass a substantial fitness variation. A simple rule is uncovered: the net fitness change is negatively correlated with the fitness of the genotype in which new mutations appeara signature of epistasis. We find that Fisher's geometrical model can account for the observed patterns of fitness change and infer the parameters of this model that best fit the data, using Approximate Bayesian Computation. We estimate a genomic mutation rate of 0.01 per generation for fitness altering mutations, albeit with a large confidence interval, a mean fitness effect of mutations of -0.01, and an effective number of traits nine in mutS(-)E. coli. This framework can be extended to confront a broader range of models with data and test different classes of fitness landscape models.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available