Molecular Specificity, Convergence and Constraint Shape Adaptive Evolution in Nutrient-Poor Environments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the central goals of evolutionary biology is to explain and predict the molecular basis of adaptive evolution. We studied the evolution of genetic networks in Saccharomyces cerevisiae (budding yeast) populations propagated for more than 200 generations in different nitrogen-limiting conditions. We find that rapid adaptive evolution in nitrogen-poor environments is dominated by the de novo generation and selection of copy number variants (CNVs), a large fraction of which contain genes encoding specific nitrogen transporters including PUT4, DUR3 and DAL4. The large fitness increases associated with these alleles limits the genetic heterogeneity of adapting populations even in environments with multiple nitrogen sources. Complete identification of acquired point mutations, in individual lineages and entire populations, identified heterogeneity at the level of genetic loci but common themes at the level of functional modules, including genes controlling phosphatidylinositol-3-phosphate metabolism and vacuole biogenesis. Adaptive strategies shared with other nutrient-limited environments point to selection of genetic variation in the TORC1 and Ras/PKA signaling pathways as a general mechanism underlying improved growth in nutrient-limited environments. Within a single population we observed the repeated independent selection of a multi-locus genotype, comprised of the functionally related genes GAT1, MEP2 and LST4. By studying the fitness of individual alleles, and their combination, as well as the evolutionary history of the evolving population, we find that the order in which these mutations are acquired is constrained by epistasis. The identification of repeatedly selected variation at functionally related loci that interact epistatically suggests that gene network polymorphisms (GNPs) may be a frequent outcome of adaptive evolution. Our results provide insight into the mechanistic basis by which cells adapt to nutrient-limited environments and suggest that knowledge of the selective environment and the regulatory mechanisms important for growth and survival in that environment greatly increase the predictability of adaptive evolution.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".