A major challenge in evolutionary biology is explaining how populations navigate rugged fitness landscapes without getting trapped on local optima. One idea illustrated by adaptive dynamics theory is that as populations adapt, their newly enhanced capacities to exploit resources alter fitness payoffs and restructure the landscape in ways that promote speciation by opening new adaptive pathways. While there have been indirect tests of this theory, to our knowledge none have measured how fitness landscapes deform during adaptation, or test whether these shifts promote diversification. Here, we achieve this by studying bacteriophage
Host-parasite coevolution promotes innovation through deformations in fitness landscapes
During the struggle for survival, populations occasionally evolve new functions that give them access to untapped ecological opportunities. Theory suggests that coevolution between species can promote the evolution of such innovations by deforming fitness landscapes in ways that open new adaptive pathways. We directly tested this idea by using high-throughput gene editing-phenotyping technology (MAGE-Seq) to measure the fitness landscape of a virus, bacteriophage λ, as it coevolved with its host, the bacterium Escherichia coli . An analysis of the empirical fitness landscape revealed mutation-by-mutation-by-host-genotype interactions that demonstrate coevolution modified the contours of λ’s landscape. Computer simulations of λ’s evolution on a static versus shifting fitness landscape showed that the changes in contours increased λ’s chances of evolving the ability to use a new host receptor. By coupling sequencing and pairwise competition experiments, we demonstrated that the first mutation λ evolved en route to the innovation would only evolve in the presence of the ancestral host, whereas later steps in λ’s evolution required the shift to a resistant host. When time-shift replays of the coevolution experiment were run where host evolution was artificially accelerated, λ did not innovate to use the new receptor. This study provides direct evidence for the role of coevolution in driving evolutionary novelty and provides a quantitative framework for predicting evolution in coevolving ecological communities.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 1934515
- NSF-PAR ID:
- 10343852
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- eLife
- Volume:
- 11
- ISSN:
- 2050-084X
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
more » « less
Abstract $$\lambda$$ $$\lambda$$ $$\lambda$$ $$\lambda$$ $$\lambda$$ -
BACKGROUND Charles Darwin’s Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex tackled the two main controversies arising from the Origin of Species: the evolution of humans from animal ancestors and the evolution of sexual ornaments. Most of the book focuses on the latter, Darwin’s theory of sexual selection. Research since supports his conjecture that songs, perfumes, and intricate dances evolve because they help secure mating partners. Evidence is overwhelming for a primary role of both male and female mate choice in sexual selection—not only through premating courtship but also through intimate interactions during and long after mating. But what makes one prospective mate more enticing than another? Darwin, shaped by misogyny and sexual prudery, invoked a “taste for the beautiful” without speculating on the origin of the “taste.” How to explain when the “final marriage ceremony” is between two rams? What of oral sex in bats, cloacal rubbing in bonobos, or the sexual spectrum in humans, all observable in Darwin’s time? By explaining desire through the lens of those male traits that caught his eyes and those of his gender and culture, Darwin elided these data in his theory of sexual evolution. Work since Darwin has focused on how traits and preferences coevolve. Preferences can evolve even if attractive signals only predict offspring attractiveness, but most attention has gone to the intuitive but tenuous premise that mating with gorgeous partners yields vigorous offspring. By focusing on those aspects of mating preferences that coevolve with male traits, many of Darwin’s influential followers have followed the same narrow path. The sexual selection debate in the 1980s was framed as “good genes versus runaway”: Do preferences coevolve with traits because traits predict genetic benefits, or simply because they are beautiful? To the broader world this is still the conversation. ADVANCES Even as they evolve toward ever-more-beautiful signals and healthier offspring, mate-choice mechanisms and courter traits are locked in an arms race of coercion and resistance, persuasion and skepticism. Traits favored by sexual selection often do so at the expense of chooser fitness, creating sexual conflict. Choosers then evolve preferences in response to the costs imposed by courters. Often, though, the current traits of courters tell us little about how preferences arise. Sensory systems are often tuned to nonsexual cues like food, favoring mating signals resembling those cues. And preferences can emerge simply from selection on choosing conspecifics. Sexual selection can therefore arise from chooser biases that have nothing to do with ornaments. Choice may occur before mating, as Darwin emphasized, but individuals mate multiple times and bias fertilization and offspring care toward favored partners. Mate choice can thus occur in myriad ways after mating, through behavioral, morphological, and physiological mechanisms. Like other biological traits, mating preferences vary among individuals and species along multiple dimensions. Some of this is likely adaptive, as different individuals will have different optimal mates. Indeed, mate choice may be more about choosing compatible partners than picking the “best” mate in the absolute sense. Compatibility-based choice can drive or reinforce genetic divergence and lead to speciation. The mechanisms underlying the “taste for the beautiful” determine whether mate choice accelerates or inhibits reproductive isolation. If preferences are learned from parents, or covary with ecological differences like the sensory environment, then choice can promote genetic divergence. If everyone shares preferences for attractive ornaments, then choice promotes gene flow between lineages. OUTLOOK Two major trends continue to shift the emphasis away from male “beauty” and toward how and why individuals make sexual choices. The first integrates neuroscience, genomics, and physiology. We need not limit ourselves to the feathers and dances that dazzled Darwin, which gives us a vastly richer picture of mate choice. The second is that despite persistent structural inequities in academia, a broader range of people study a broader range of questions. This new focus confirms Darwin’s insight that mate choice makes a primary contribution to sexual selection, but suggests that sexual selection is often tangential to mate choice. This conclusion challenges a persistent belief with sinister roots, whereby mate choice is all about male ornaments. Under this view, females evolve to prefer handsome males who provide healthy offspring, or alternatively, to express flighty whims for arbitrary traits. But mate-choice mechanisms also evolve for a host of other reasons Understanding mate choice mechanisms is key to understanding how sexual decisions underlie speciation and adaptation to environmental change. New theory and technology allow us to explicitly connect decision-making mechanisms with their evolutionary consequences. A century and a half after Darwin, we can shift our focus to females and males as choosers, rather than the gaudy by-products of mate choice. Mate choice mechanisms across domains of life. Sensory periphery for stimulus detection (yellow), brain for perceptual integration and evaluation (orange), and reproductive structures for postmating choice among pollen or sperm (teal). ILLUSTRATION: KELLIE HOLOSKI/ SCIENCEmore » « less
-
null (Ed.)Abstract An animal's social behaviour both influences and changes in response to its parasites. Here we consider these bidirectional links between host social behaviours and parasite infection, both those that occur from ecological vs evolutionary processes. First, we review how social behaviours of individuals and groups influence ecological patterns of parasite transmission. We then discuss how parasite infection, in turn, can alter host social interactions by changing the behaviour of both infected and uninfected individuals. Together, these ecological feedbacks between social behaviour and parasite infection can result in important epidemiological consequences. Next, we consider the ways in which host social behaviours evolve in response to parasites, highlighting constraints that arise from the need for hosts to maintain benefits of sociality while minimizing fitness costs of parasites. Finally, we consider how host social behaviours shape the population genetic structure of parasites and the evolution of key parasite traits, such as virulence. Overall, these bidirectional relationships between host social behaviours and parasites are an important yet often underappreciated component of population-level disease dynamics and host–parasite coevolution.more » « less
-
Zhang, George (Ed.)Abstract Understanding the evolution of novel physiological traits is highly relevant for expanding the characterization and manipulation of biological systems. Acquisition of new traits can be achieved through horizontal gene transfer (HGT). Here, we investigate drivers that promote or deter the maintenance of HGT-driven degeneracy, occurring when processes accomplish identical functions through nonidentical components. Subsequent evolution can optimize newly acquired functions; for example, beneficial alleles identified in an engineered Methylorubrum extorquens strain allowed it to utilize a “Foreign” formaldehyde oxidation pathway substituted for its Native pathway for methylotrophic growth. We examined the fitness consequences of interactions between these alleles when they were combined with the Native pathway or both (Dual) pathways. Unlike the Foreign pathway context where they evolved, these alleles were often neutral or deleterious when moved into these alternative genetic backgrounds. However, there were instances where combinations of multiple alleles resulted in higher fitness outcomes than individual allelic substitutions could provide. Importantly, the genetic context accompanying these allelic substitutions significantly altered the fitness landscape, shifting local fitness peaks and restricting the set of accessible evolutionary trajectories. These findings highlight how genetic context can negatively impact the probability of maintaining native and HGT-introduced functions together, making it difficult for degeneracy to evolve. However, in cases where the cost of maintaining degeneracy was mitigated by adding evolved alleles impacting the function of these pathways, we observed rare opportunities for pathway coevolution to occur. Together, our results highlight the importance of genetic context and resulting epistasis in retaining or losing HGT-acquired degenerate functions.more » « less
-
more » « less
Hosts can avoid parasites (and pathogens) by reducing social contact, but such isolation may carry costs, e.g. increased vulnerability to predators. Thus, many predator–host–parasite systems confront hosts with a trade-off between predation and parasitism. Parasites, meanwhile, evolve higher virulence in response to increased host sociality and consequently, increased multiple infections. How does predation shift coevolution of host behaviour and parasite virulence? What if predators are selective, i.e. predators disproportionately capture the sickest hosts? We answer these questions with an eco-coevolutionary model parametrized for a Trinidadian guppy–
Gyrodactylus spp. system. Here, increased predation drives host coevolution of higher grouping, which selects for higher virulence. Additionally, higher predator selectivity drives the contact rate higher and virulence lower. Finally, we show how predation and selectivity can have very different impacts on host density and prevalence depending on whether hosts or parasites evolve, or both. For example, higher predator selectivity led to lower prevalence with no evolution or only parasite evolution but higher prevalence with host evolution or coevolution. These findings inform our understanding of diverse systems in which host behavioural responses to predation may lead to increased prevalence and virulence of parasites.
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Journal Article:
- https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.76162
