High-Throughput Identification of Adaptive Mutations in Experimentally Evolved Yeast Populations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
High-throughput sequencing has enabled genetic screens that can rapidly identify mutations that occur during experimental evolution. The presence of a mutation in an evolved lineage does not, however, constitute proof that the mutation is adaptive, given the well-known and widespread phenomenon of genetic hitchhiking, in which a non-adaptive or even detrimental mutation can co-occur in a genome with a beneficial mutation and the combined genotype is carried to high frequency by selection. We approximated the spectrum of possible beneficial mutations in Saccharomyces cerevisiae using sets of single-gene deletions and amplifications of almost all the genes in the S. cerevisiae genome. We determined the fitness effects of each mutation in three different nutrient-limited conditions using pooled competitions followed by barcode sequencing. Although most of the mutations were neutral or deleterious, ~500 of them increased fitness. We then compared those results to the mutations that actually occurred during experimental evolution in the same three nutrient-limited conditions. On average, ~35% of the mutations that occurred during experimental evolution were predicted by the systematic screen to be beneficial. We found that the distribution of fitness effects depended on the selective conditions. In the phosphate-limited and glucose-limited conditions, a large number of beneficial mutations of nearly equivalent, small effects drove the fitness increases. In the sulfate-limited condition, one type of mutation, the amplification of the high-affinity sulfate transporter, dominated. In the absence of that mutation, evolution in the sulfate-limited condition involved mutations in other genes that were not observed previously-but were predicted by the systematic screen. Thus, gross functional screens have the potential to predict and identify adaptive mutations that occur during experimental 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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".