Search for: All records

Humans have long known how to co-opt evolutionary processes for their own benefit. Carefully choosing which individuals to breed so that beneficial traits would take hold, they have domesticated dogs, wheat, cows and many other species to fulfil their needs. Biologists have recently refined these ‘artificial selection’ approaches to focus on microorganisms. The hope is to obtain microbes equipped with desirable features, such as the ability to degrade plastic or to produce valuable molecules. However, existing ways of using artificial selection on microbes are limited and sometimes not effective. Computer scientists have also harnessed evolutionary principles for their own purposes, developing highly effective artificial selection protocols that are used to find solutions to challenging computational problems. Yet because of limited communication between the two fields, sophisticated selection protocols honed over decades in evolutionary computing have yet to be evaluated for use in biological populations. In their work, Lalejini et al. compared popular artificial selection protocols developed for either evolutionary computing or work with microorganisms. Two computing selection methods showed promise for improving directed evolution in the laboratory. Crucially, these selection protocols differed from conventionally used methods by selecting for both diversity and performance, rather than performance alone. These promising approaches are now being tested in the laboratory, with potentially far-reaching benefits for medical, biotech, and agricultural applications. While evolutionary computing owes its origins to our understanding of biological processes, it has much to offer in return to help us harness those same mechanisms. The results by Lalejini et al. help to bridge the gap between computational and biological communities who could both benefit from increased collaboration. 

Short Abstract for evolutionary computing community on selection schemes working for directed evolution experiments in microbes. 

Symbiosis, the living together of unlike organisms as symbionts, is ubiquitous in the natural world. Symbioses occur within and across all scales of life, from microbial to macro-faunal systems. Further, the interactions between symbionts are multimodal in both strength and type, can span from parasitic to mutualistic within one partnership, and persist over generations. Studying the ecological and evolutionary dynamics of symbiosis in natural or laboratory systems poses a wide range of challenges, including the long time scales at which symbioses evolve de novo , the limited capacity to experimentally control symbiotic interactions, the weak resolution at which we can quantify interactions, and the idiosyncrasies of current model systems. These issues are especially challenging when seeking to understand the ecological effects and evolutionary pressures on and of a symbiosis, such as how a symbiosis may shift between parasitic and mutualistic modes and how that shift impacts the dynamics of the partner population. In digital evolution, populations of computational organisms compete, mutate, and evolve in a virtual environment. Digital evolution features perfect data tracking and allows for experimental manipulations that are impractical or impossible in natural systems. Furthermore, modern computational power allows experimenters to observe thousands of generations of evolution in minutes (as opposed to several months or years), which greatly expands the range of possible studies. As such, digital evolution is poised to become a keystone technique in our methodological repertoire for studying the ecological and evolutionary dynamics of symbioses. Here, we review how digital evolution has been used to study symbiosis, and we propose a series of open questions that digital evolution is well-positioned to answer. 

Building more open-ended evolutionary systems can simultaneously advance our understanding of biology, artificial life, and evolutionary computation. In order to do so, however, we need a way to determine when we are moving closer to this goal. We propose a set of metrics that allow us to measure a system's ability to produce commonly-agreed-upon hallmarks of open-ended evolution: change potential, novelty potential, complexity potential, and ecological potential. Our goal is to make these metrics easy to incorporate into a system, and comparable across systems so that we can make coherent progress as a field. To this end, we provide detailed algorithms (including C++ implementations) for these metrics that should be easy to incorporate into existing artificial life systems. Furthermore, we expect this toolbox to continue to grow as researchers implement these metrics in new languages and as the community reaches consensus about additional hallmarks of open-ended evolution. For example, we would welcome a measurement of a system's potential to produce major transitions in individuality. To confirm that our metrics accurately measure the hallmarks we are interested in, we test them on two very different experimental systems: NK landscapes and the Avida digital evolution platform. We find that our observed results are consistent with our prior knowledge about these systems, suggesting that our proposed metrics are effective and should generalize to other systems. 

Unicellular organisms can engage in a process by which a cell purposefully destroys itself, termed programmed cell death (PCD). While it is clear that the death of specific cells within amulticellularorganism could increase inclusive fitness (e.g., during development), the origin of PCD inunicellularorganisms is less obvious. Kin selection has been shown to help maintain instances of PCD in existing populations of unicellular organisms; however, competing hypotheses exist about whether additional factors are necessary to explain its origin. Those factors could include an environmental shift that causes latent PCD to be expressed, PCD hitchhiking on a large beneficial mutation, and PCD being simply a common pathology. Here, we present results using an artificial life model to demonstrate that kin selection can, in fact, be sufficient to give rise to PCD in unicellular organisms. Furthermore, when benefits to kin are direct—that is, resources provided to nearby kin—PCD is more beneficial than when benefits are indirect—that is, nonkin are injured, thus increasing the relative amount of resources for kin. Finally, when considering how strict organisms are in determining kin or nonkin (in terms of mutations), direct benefits are viable in a narrower range than indirect benefits.

This article has been awarded Open Data and Open Materials Badges. All materials and data are publicly accessible via the Open Science Framework athttps://github.com/anyaevostinar/SuicidalAltruismDissertation/tree/master/LongTerm.