Parallel reorganization of protein function in the spindle checkpoint pathway through evolutionary paths in the fitness landscape that appear neutral in laboratory experiments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Regulatory networks often increase in complexity during evolution through gene duplication and divergence of component proteins. Two models that explain this increase in complexity are: 1) adaptive changes after gene duplication, such as resolution of adaptive conflicts, and 2) non-adaptive processes such as duplication, degeneration and complementation. Both of these models predict complementary changes in the retained duplicates, but they can be distinguished by direct fitness measurements in organisms with short generation times. Previously, it has been observed that repeated duplication of an essential protein in the spindle checkpoint pathway has occurred multiple times over the eukaryotic tree of life, leading to convergent protein domain organization in its duplicates. Here, we replace the paralog pair in S. cerevisiae with a single-copy protein from a species that did not undergo gene duplication. Surprisingly, using quantitative fitness measurements in laboratory conditions stressful for the spindle-checkpoint pathway, we find no evidence that reorganization of protein function after gene duplication is beneficial. We then reconstruct several evolutionary intermediates from the inferred ancestral network to the extant one, and find that, at the resolution of our assay, there exist stepwise mutational paths from the single protein to the divergent pair of extant proteins with no apparent fitness defects. Parallel evolution has been taken as strong evidence for natural selection, but our results suggest that even in these cases, reorganization of protein function after gene duplication may be explained by neutral processes.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".