Evolution of Amino Acid Propensities under Stability-Mediated Epistasis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Site-specific amino acid preferences are influenced by the genetic background of the protein. The preferences for resident amino acids are expected to, on average, increase over time because of replacements at other sites-a nonadaptive phenomenon referred to as the "evolutionary Stokes shift." Alternatively, decreases in resident amino acid propensity have recently been viewed as evidence of adaptations to external environmental changes. Using population genetics theory and thermodynamic stability constraints, we show that nonadaptive evolution can lead to both positive and negative shifts in propensities following the fixation of an amino acid, emphasizing that the detection of negative shifts is not conclusive evidence of adaptation. By examining propensity shifts from when an amino acid is first accepted at a site until it is subsequently replaced, we find that ≈50% of sites show a decrease in the propensity for the newly resident amino acid while the remaining sites show an increase. Furthermore, the distributions of the magnitudes of positive and negative shifts were comparable. Preferences were often conserved via a significant negative autocorrelation in propensity changes-increases in propensities often followed by decreases, and vice versa. Lastly, we explore the underlying mechanisms that lead propensities to fluctuate. We observe that stabilizing replacements increase the mutational tolerance at a site and in doing so decrease the propensity for the resident amino acid. In contrast, destabilizing substitutions result in more rugged fitness landscapes that tend to favor the resident amino acid. In summary, our results characterize propensity trajectories under nonadaptive stability-constrained evolution against which evidence of adaptations should be calibrated.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".