4.5 Article

Gene regulation in Escherichiacoli is commonly selected for both high plasticity and low noise

期刊

NATURE ECOLOGY & EVOLUTION
卷 6, 期 8, 页码 1165-+

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41559-022-01783-2

关键词

-

资金

  1. Marsden Grant-Royal Society Te Aparangi [MAU1703]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

By comparing naturally segregating promoter variants to randomly mutated promoters, this study demonstrates the presence of stabilizing and directional selection that reduce phenotypic variation.
Bacteria often respond to dynamically changing environments by regulating gene expression. Despite this regulation being critically important for growth and survival, little is known about how selection shapes gene regulation in natural populations. To better understand the role natural selection plays in shaping bacterial gene regulation, here we compare differences in the regulatory behaviour of naturally segregating promoter variants from Escherichia coli (which have been subject to natural selection) to randomly mutated promoter variants (which have never been exposed to natural selection). We quantify gene expression phenotypes (expression level, plasticity and noise) for hundreds of promoter variants across multiple environments and show that segregating promoter variants are enriched for mutations with minimal effects on expression level. In many promoters, we infer that there is strong selection to maintain high levels of plasticity, and direct selection to decrease or increase cell-to-cell variability in expression. Taken together, these results expand our knowledge of how gene regulation is affected by natural selection and highlight the power of comparing naturally segregating polymorphisms to de novo random mutations to quantify the action of selection. Comparing the regulatory behaviour of naturally segregating promoter variants to randomly mutated promoters, the authors demonstrate both stabilizing and directional selection that reduce variation in phenotype.

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

4.5
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