Cost of Adaptation and Fitness Effects of Beneficial Mutations in<i>Pseudomonas fluorescens</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adaptations are constructed through the sequential substitution of beneficial mutations by natural selection. However, the rarity of beneficial mutations has precluded efforts to describe even their most basic properties. Do beneficial mutations typically confer small or large fitness gains? Are their fitness effects environment specific, or are they broadly beneficial across a range of environments? To answer these questions, we used two subsets (n = 18 and n = 63) of a large library of mutants carrying antibiotic resistance mutations in the bacterium Pseudomonas fluorescens whose fitness, along with the antibiotic sensitive ancestor, was assayed across 95 novel environments differing in the carbon source available for growth. We explore patterns of genotype-by-environment (G × E) interactions and ecological specialization among the 18 mutants initially found superior to the sensitive ancestor in one environment. We find that G × E is remarkably similar between the two sets of mutants and that beneficial mutants are not typically associated with large costs of adaptation. Fitness effects among beneficial mutants depart from a strict exponential distribution: they assume a variety of shapes that are often roughly L shaped but always right truncated. Distributions of (beneficial) fitness effects predicted by a landscape model assuming multiple traits underlying fitness and a single optimum often provide a good description of the empirical distributions in our data. Simulations of data sets containing a mixture of single and double mutants under this landscape show that inferences about the distribution of fitness effects of beneficial mutants is quite robust to contamination by second-site mutations.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".