4.8 Article

Inferring fitness landscapes by regression produces biased estimates of epistasis

出版社

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1400849111

关键词

molecular evolution; experimental evolution; penalized regression

资金

  1. Burroughs Wellcome Fund
  2. David and Lucile Packard Foundation
  3. US Department of the Interior Grant [D12AP00025]
  4. US Army Research Office [W911NF-12-1-0552]
  5. Foundational Questions in Evolutionary Biology Fund [RFP-12-16]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The genotype-fitness map plays a fundamental role in shaping the dynamics of evolution. However, it is difficult to directly measure a fitness landscape in practice, because the number of possible genotypes is astronomical. One approach is to sample as many genotypes as possible, measure their fitnesses, and fit a statistical model of the landscape that includes additive and pairwise interactive effects between loci. Here, we elucidate the pitfalls of using such regressions by studying artificial but mathematically convenient fitness landscapes. We identify two sources of bias inherent in these regression procedures, each of which tends to underestimate high fitnesses and overestimate low fitnesses. We characterize these biases for random sampling of genotypes as well as samples drawn from a population under selection in the Wright-Fisher model of evolutionary dynamics. We show that common measures of epistasis, such as the number of monotonically increasing paths between ancestral and derived genotypes, the prevalence of sign epistasis, and the number of local fitness maxima, are distorted in the inferred landscape. As a result, the inferred landscape will provide systematically biased predictions for the dynamics of adaptation. We identify the same biases in a computational RNA-folding landscape as well as regulatory sequence binding data treated with the same fitting procedure. Finally, we present a method to ameliorate these biases in some cases.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据