How mutational epistasis impairs predictability in protein evolution and design
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There has been much debate about the extent to which mutational epistasis, that is, the dependence of the outcome of a mutation on the genetic background, constrains evolutionary trajectories. The degree of unpredictability introduced by epistasis, due to the non-additivity of functional effects, strongly hinders the strategies developed in protein design and engineering. While many studies have addressed this issue through systematic characterization of evolutionary trajectories within individual enzymes, the field lacks a consensus view on this matter. In this work, we performed a comprehensive analysis of epistasis by analyzing the mutational effects from nine adaptive trajectories toward new enzymatic functions. We quantified epistasis by comparing the effect of mutations occurring between two genetic backgrounds: the starting enzyme (for example, wild type) and the intermediate variant on which the mutation occurred during the trajectory. We found that most trajectories exhibit positive epistasis, in which the mutational effect is more beneficial when it occurs later in the evolutionary trajectory. Approximately half (49%) of functional mutations were neutral or negative on the wild-type background, but became beneficial at a later stage in the trajectory, indicating that these functional mutations were not predictable from the initial starting point. While some cases of strong epistasis were associated with direct interaction between residues, many others were caused by long-range indirect interactions between mutations. Our work highlights the prevalence of epistasis in enzyme adaptive evolution, in particular positive epistasis, and suggests the necessity of incorporating mutational epistasis in protein engineering and design to create highly efficient catalysts.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".