MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2177088736 · doi:10.1101/014068

Empirical determinants of adaptive mutations in yeast experimental evolution

2015· preprint· en· W2177088736 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Célia Payen, Anna B. Sunshine, Giang T. Ong, Jamie L. Pogachar, Wei Zhao, Maitreya J. Dunham

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2015
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEvolution and Genetic Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of General Medical SciencesCanadian Institute for Advanced ResearchMarch of Dimes FoundationNational Institutes of HealthNational Science Foundation
KeywordsYeastGeneticsAdaptive evolutionMutationBiologyComputational biologyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT High-throughput sequencing technologies have enabled expansion of the scope of genetic screens to identify mutations that underlie quantitative phenotypes, such as fitness improvements that occur during the course of experimental evolution. This new capability has allowed us to describe the relationship between fitness and genotype at a level never possible before, and ask deeper questions, such as how genome structure, available mutation spectrum, and other factors drive evolution. Here we combined functional genomics and experimental evolution to first map on a genome scale the distribution of potential beneficial mutations available as a first step to an evolving population and then compare these to the mutations actually observed in order to define the constraints acting upon evolution. We first constructed a single-step fitness landscape for the yeast genome by using barcoded gene deletion and overexpression collections, competitive growth in continuous culture, and barcode sequencing. By quantifying the relative fitness effects of thousands of single-gene amplifications or deletions simultaneously we revealed the presence of hundreds of accessible evolutionary paths. To determine the actual mutation spectrum used in evolution, we built a catalog of >1000 mutations selected during experimental evolution. By combining both datasets, we were able to ask how and why evolution is constrained. We identified adaptive mutations in laboratory evolved populations, derived mutational signatures in a variety of conditions and ploidy states, and determined that half of the mutations accumulated positively affect cellular fitness. We also uncovered hundreds of potential beneficial mutations never observed in the mutational spectrum derived from the experimental evolution catalog and found that those adaptive mutations become accessible in the absence of the dominant adaptive solution. This comprehensive functional screen explored the set of potential adaptive mutations on one genetic background, and allows us for the first time at this scale to compare the mutational path with the actual, spontaneously derived spectrum of mutations. AUTHOR SUMMARY Whole genome sequencing of thousands of cancer genomes has been conducted to characterize variants including point mutations and structural changes, providing a large catalogue of critical polymorphisms associated with tumorigenesis. Despite the high prevalence of mutations in cancer and technological advances in their genotyping, cancer genetics still presents many open questions regarding the prediction of selection and the functional impact of mutations on cellular fitness. Long term experimental evolution using model organisms has allowed the selection for strains bearing recurrent and rare mutations, mimicking the genetic aberrations acquired by tumor cells. Here, we evaluate the functional impact of thousands of single gene losses and amplifications on the cellular fitness of yeast. Our results show that hundreds of beneficial mutations are possible during adaptation but not all of them have been selected in evolution experiments so far performed. Together, our results provide evidence that 50% of the mutations found in experimentally evolved populations are advantageous, and that alternative mutations with improved fitness could be selected in the absence of the main adaptive mutations with higher fitness. BLURB A combined view of potential adaptive mutations, generated by a systematic screening approach, coupled with the mutational spectrum derived from experimentally evolved yeast reveals the usage of accessible evolutionary solutions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.258 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)Same topicEvolution and Genetic DynamicsFrench-language works237,207