The Fitness Consequences of Aneuploidy Are Driven by Condition-Dependent Gene Effects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aneuploidy is a hallmark of tumor cells, and yet the precise relationship between aneuploidy and a cell's proliferative ability, or cellular fitness, has remained elusive. In this study, we have combined a detailed analysis of aneuploid clones isolated from laboratory-evolved populations of Saccharomyces cerevisiae with a systematic, genome-wide screen for the fitness effects of telomeric amplifications to address the relationship between aneuploidy and cellular fitness. We found that aneuploid clones rise to high population frequencies in nutrient-limited evolution experiments and show increased fitness relative to wild type. Direct competition experiments confirmed that three out of four aneuploid events isolated from evolved populations were themselves sufficient to improve fitness. To expand the scope beyond this small number of exemplars, we created a genome-wide collection of >1,800 diploid yeast strains, each containing a different telomeric amplicon (Tamp), ranging in size from 0.4 to 1,000 kb. Using pooled competition experiments in nutrient-limited chemostats followed by high-throughput sequencing of strain-identifying barcodes, we determined the fitness effects of these >1,800 Tamps under three different conditions. Our data revealed that the fitness landscape explored by telomeric amplifications is much broader than that explored by single-gene amplifications. As also observed in the evolved clones, we found the fitness effects of most Tamps to be condition specific, with a minority showing common effects in all three conditions. By integrating our data with previous work that examined the fitness effects of single-gene amplifications genome-wide, we found that a small number of genes within each Tamp are centrally responsible for each Tamp's fitness effects. Our genome-wide Tamp screen confirmed that telomeric amplifications identified in laboratory-evolved populations generally increased fitness. Our results show that Tamps are mutations that produce large, typically condition-dependent changes in fitness that are important drivers of increased fitness in asexually evolving populations.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".