Evolution in higher dimensions

By Razib Khan | April 18, 2011 12:22 am

Ornithomimosaurian dinosaur & ostrich, image credit Nobu Tamura & James G. Howes

ResearchBlogging.orgThe Pith: This post explores evolution at two different scales: the broad philosophical and the close in genetic. Philosophically, is evolution a highly contingent process which is not characterized by much replication of form and function? Or, is evolution at the end of the day aiming for a few set points which define the most optimal fitness positions possible? And how do both of these models relate to the interaction across genes, epistasis? In this post I review a paper which shows exactly how historical contingency could work through gene-gene interactions on the molecular genetic scale.

Imagine if you will a portal to another universe which you have access to. By fiat let’s give you a “pod” which allows you to move freely throughout this universe, and also let’s assume that you can travel fast enough to go from planet to planet. What if you see that on all the planets there’s a sludgy living “goo” of some sort? To complexify the issue imagine that upon further inspection the goo is divided between a predominant photosynthetic element, and “parasitic” heterotrophs. But aside from these two niches there’s little diversity to be seen in this cosmos. The “climax ecology” of all the planets resemble each other, in case after case convergent evolution toward the one-morphology-to-out-fit-them-all. We could from these observations construct a general theory of evolution which deemphasizes the role of contingency. In other words, there are broad general dynamics which shape and prune the tree of life in this hypothetical universe so that there is always a final terminal steady-state of the most fit morphology.

A model of evolution as a process of very general principles which converges upon a small finite range of optimal solutions has been promoted by paleontologists such as Simon Conway Morris. Stephen Jay Gould was a famous expositor of the inverse position, which emphasized chance and contingency. Gould’s suggestion was that if you ran the evolutionary experiment anew the outcomes each time would likely differ. In The Ancestor’s Tale Richard Dawkins leans toward the former position, insofar as he does assent to the proposition that evolutionary dynamics do inevitably forward certain broad trends, irrespective of the specific historical sequence of states antecedent to the terminus. More fanciful and speculative extrapolations of this logic are used to justify the ubiquity of a humanoid morphology in science fiction. The theory goes that a bipedal organism whose upper limbs are free to manipulate tools is going to be the likely body plan of intelligent aliens (though they will also have easy to add nose frills and such).

Until we meet those aliens these speculations are going to remain just that. And the debates about morphology, in particular body plan, are constrained by the fact that we have only one “natural experiment” to go on. So that’s why it is interesting to look at genetics, which is after all the modern fundamental characterization of the basic of evolutionary process in regards inheritance of traits. In particular looking at molecular genetics and evolution can be illustrative of the grounding of broader process. Neutral theory, which was stimulated by an understanding of evolution on the molecular level, has reordered our perception of the nature of larger scale morphological characters, in terms of both their potential utility and ultimate origin. Similarly, an inspection of the interactions of genotypes can put a spotlight on the adaptive landscape, an abstraction of the dimension of fitness explored by combinations of genetic variants.

A new paper in PLoS Genetics explores the specific question of the role of epistasis in the dance between contingency and determinism. The more common conceptualization of epistasis is mechanistic or biophysical, describing concrete gene-gene interactions on a molecular genetic scale. In this context we are more curious about the fitness and phenotypic implications of gene-gene interactions. This is evolutionary or statistical epistasis. You can think of this sort of phenomenon as simply the non-linearities in the mapping from genotype to phenotype.

Evolutionary genetics in the early 20th century was formulated by R. A. Fisher to avoid these non-linearities. Rather, it fixated on a model of change of allele frequency one locus at a time, averaging the “genetic background.” These were evolutionary genetic architectures which were additive and independent (multiplicative effects remain linear, and can be rescaled easily). Statistical epistasis is describing genetic architectures which are not additive and independent. Fisher’s intellectual rival Sewall Wright was more concerned with these interaction effects in his “Shifting Balance Theory,” but even Will Provine, Wright’s biographer, admitted that there was a certain incoherency and lack of clarity in his thoughts on gene-gene interactions and adaptive landscapes.

So where are we now? In the PloS Genetics paper, Initial Mutations Direct Alternative Pathways of Protein Evolution, the authors suggest that interlocking gene-gene interactions can shape the path of evolution via the constraints which prior states place upon later ones. In other words the adaptive landscape is not simple in its topography, characterized by a clear and distinct fitness peak, but is rugged so that there are multiple points upon which the populations may converge upon.

Here’s the author summary:

A long-term goal of evolutionary biology is to understand the factors that govern the outcome of evolution. Epistasis (i.e. the situation in which the fitness effect of a mutation depends on its genetic background) is one such factor. Epistasis not only affects the dynamics of evolution, it may also direct its outcome by affecting the type and order of selected mutations. This effect is particularly strong under sign epistasis, which occurs when the sign of a mutation’s fitness effect depends on its genetic background. Here, we demonstrate how epistasis causes divergence of mutational pathways of an antibiotic resistance enzyme, TEM-1 β-lactamase. First, we use in vitro mutagenesis followed by selection for cefotaxime resistance to demonstrate that alternative mutational pathways towards highly resistant variants exist in addition to the main pathway that was previously described. Next, to test whether negative interactions between alternative initial substitutions govern this diversification, we start identical evolution experiments with alleles containing initial substitutions from the deviating lines. These alleles consistently evolve to lower adaptive peaks and acquire different mutations than those in the main pathway. Our results demonstrate that sign epistasis between alternative initial substitutions may force evolution to follow different mutational pathways.

This is not a paper gifted with easy to comprehend figures. The one to the left though is rather informative. It shows what we should expect in regards to evolutionary arcs: populations converge upon a fitness peak and enter a phase of stasis after rapid evolution. Each of the lines denotes different mutational lineages, and the height on the y-axis illustrates how resistant these lineages are to antibiotics. The x-axis is time. In this series of directed evolution experiments they seem to have increased the mutation rate so that genetic variation was not a limiter on the action of evolution through natural selection (remember, the power of selection is proportional to genic variance). This is to some extent old school genetics. We’re not talking thousands of SNPs. But I honestly had a hard time keeping in mind the alphabet soup of different loci. But the broad insights are derived from a narrow range of results:

- An initial set of experiments which allowed for the evolution of antibiotic resistance show the emergence of a similar genetic profile in most of the lines. This illustrates the power of convergence given the same exogenous adaptive pressure, the antibiotic. The authors argue that this highlights epistasis’ role in constraining the mutational space across the genome which can be modified to allow for antibiotic resistance.

- But, there were exceptions in several lineages. Two lack the G238S substitution. These two lines had reduced ability to resist the antibiotic. Forcing the G238S variant onto the background of the lineages which lacked it resulted in the finding that this substitution did not have a fitness improving impact, in contrast to the other cases. This shows the importance of genetic background, as the nature of other genes affects the selective advantage or lack thereof of a particular allele. Additionally, the lineages which lacked G238S tended to plateau at a lower of level of resistance. These would be lower fitness peaks, but separated from the higher G238S peak by “valleys.”

- Also, in these lineages there seem to be an excess of mutations as opposed to the G238S bearing trials. The authors  offer the hypothesis that this selection of mutants in this novel background is evidence that the evolutionary process is taking a different route to solving the same problem because of shifted initial conditions (i.e., genetic variants which block the selection of G238S).

- Aside from the key initial mutations the authors also noted that there was a tendency to specific joint mutational pairs, as well as negative correlations across others. In other words, if mutation X was present, mutation Y tended not to be present, and vice versa. This suggests that the mutational path toward a fitness peak is not a series of independent steps, but a varied set of circumlocutions until an avenue toward the goal is sighted.

- Finally, forcing different pairs of negatively epistatic variants also resulted in different outcomes contingent upon the magnitude of the interaction. In a case where there was very strong negative epistasis (sharply reduced fitness, and reduced expression of the phenotype) there was a rapid reversion back to a state where such epistasis was mitigated. Remember, the mutational rates here were high, so back mutations are possible. But a second case with far weaker epistasis showed that such reversions were not always inevitable. In these cases weak epistatic interactions may eventually have been masked by modifier variants in the genetic background.

So is evolution contingent, or is it inevitable? Do gene-gene interactions play a major long-term role in evolution, or is epistatic variance inevitably converted to additive genetic variance? I think the answer is that it depends. Instead of dichotomously binning the possible space of answers one just has to acknowledge that the nature of the parameters are important. In a universe of near infinite population size and stable environmental conditions one suspects that contingency is rather less important, as natural selection can explore an enormous range of genotypic combinations over long periods of time. A contrasting situation would be one where environmental pressures are protean, and populations constrained in size. If evolution by natural selection is thought of as a tinkerer, you’d naturally see a lot more ad hoc contingent creations when you limit the raw materials (population size) and reduce the time to create (by changing selection pressures).

Citation: Salverda ML, Dellus E, Gorter FA, Debets AJ, van der Oost J, Hoekstra RF, Tawfik DS, & de Visser JA (2011). Initial mutations direct alternative pathways of protein evolution. PLoS genetics, 7 (3) PMID: 21408208

CATEGORIZED UNDER: Evolution, Genetics
  • http://www.scilogs.eu/en/blog/biology-of-religion Michael Blume

    What a cool post! Congrats! (And about to retweet it, for sure!)

  • John Emerson

    If you had a bit of trouble with the article you can be sure that I did.

    Gould’s argument is at the phenotypic level with rather minimal theorization. One basic idea is that the path taken at an early point of evolution, even if optimal then, can have sub-optimal consequences at a later point in a different environment, but it will be impossible to go back to the beginning and do things right. Examples are the human spine and shoulder, which are suboptimal for bipedal creatures, a fact that has serious medical consequences.

    In this case one suspects that no skeletal design appropriate to four-footed creatures is such that it might lead to an optimal bipedal design. In other words, if you don’t start off bipedal, but adapt from four-footed to bipedal, it’s not possible to reach the best bipedal design.

    But maybe there are other early choices, perhaps in metabolism, where the form leading to the optimal later design IS possible at the early stage, but is eliminated for chance reasons (not because it’s not possible at that point). Gould suggests several ways that pure chance could eliminate a trait: two geographically separated populations, one of which is extincted, for example, or a favorable trait trapped in an phenotype which is in other respects non-viable in a particular environment.

    The Dawkins-Conway Morris view has always seemed Whiggish or even Hegelian to me. (To sweeten the pot, Conway Morris is a Christian.)

    I remember reading about the hox genes, which are very deep down and shared by insects and vertebrates. I could imagine that there might have been an evolutionary turn in the selection of hox genes which ruled out potentially superior forms much later on, without having any particular meaning at the time.

    The whole question of contingency vs. inevitability is important in many areas of science and I think that it is much more important than people realize. (E.g. path-dependency and founder effects in econ, chaos and fractals, entropy, etc.). Economists seem to be trying to patch in little kludges for specific types of contingency without changin their science into a historical one.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=686426179 patty

    this article/blog sucks.

    [weird that Kailee Annette Sartin from Cumby High School likes to leave random troll comments -Razib]

  • http://occludedsun.wordpress.com Caledonian

    If we had never encountered elephants, I don’t believe anyone would ever have considered them plausible. (Seriously, nose-tentacles?!) And they’re one of the two most sophisticated tool-manipulators on this planet. They’re certainly much better at it than chimps, which are quasi-bipedal. So the alien argument is dubious at best.

    Parallel evolution occurs, sure. But the vast majority of examples involve creatures that already share similar constraints – like dolphins and sharks evolving similar body designs for living in the ocean. They’re both vertebrates. No matter what advantages might accrue, dolphins can’t turn into Portuguese Men-Of-War, or vice versa.

  • dave chamberlin

    scuse me Razib, but I beg to differ (and dig to buffer)

    now I’m about to launch into a run on idea likely to be ignored (best case scenario) or be rewarded with accusations of retardedness-Razib or just plain loco-Cochran.

    least it ain’t Germane Drivel…(cough, cough)

    Humans are freaks to the third power.
    The planet earth is a freak among planets
    Complex life is a rare freak on planets like earth
    Intelligent life is a rare freak among planets with complex life

    How do we know?
    we don’t, we are stuck with a sample size of one but….
    We are going to pretty soon make ourselves a 3D map of the human brain of expressed genes. The x axis will be the 25000 human genes, the y axis will be 1000 plus locations in the human brain, and the z axis will be human development from conceived fetus to adult. Then the fun begins, we compare X number of normal people with X number of geniuses and we get answers to their genetic differences.
    Right now we have the first crude maps of the new world, in this case, how that thingamajig between our ear actually works. But progress is going to be wicked quick, thanks to Moore’s Law applying to genetics as well as it does to computers. How long will it be until we can fix the game of random chance that is the next generation? Dunno. But because we can can we will. Gonna be a tussle between the freaks and the fundamentalist’s when that happens, too bad I won’t be around for the fun. For then there will be a generation of all the kiddies having the option of mind glasses, when the junior colleges will have to up the quality to MIT standards, forsooth, yea verily, it is written.
    Then and only then will we be able to head off to those other rare planets that are out there supporting their primeval goo and colonize them.
    How do we know that intelligent life is so rare? We don’t but we can deduce that is if it didn’t come here and capitalize on the planet earth for the four billion years we were primeval goo.
    Yes this is a laundry list of ifs, hope it entertained.


Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!

Gene Expression

This blog is about evolution, genetics, genomics and their interstices. Please beware that comments are aggressively moderated. Uncivil or churlish comments will likely get you banned immediately, so make any contribution count!

About Razib Khan

I have degrees in biology and biochemistry, a passion for genetics, history, and philosophy, and shrimp is my favorite food. In relation to nationality I'm a American Northwesterner, in politics I'm a reactionary, and as for religion I have none (I'm an atheist). If you want to know more, see the links at http://www.razib.com


See More


RSS Razib’s Pinboard

Edifying books

Collapse bottom bar

Login to your Account

E-mail address:
Remember me
Forgot your password?
No problem. Click here to have it e-mailed to you.

Not Registered Yet?

Register now for FREE. Registration only takes a few minutes to complete. Register now »