11
Adaptive Landscapes in Changing Environments Sandbox Session BEACON Congress 2013 Ben Kerr (UW)

Ben Kerr - Adaptive landscapes in changing environments

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Ben Kerr - Adaptive landscapes in changing environments

Adaptive Landscapes in Changing Environments

Sandbox SessionBEACON Congress 2013

Ben Kerr (UW)

Page 2: Ben Kerr - Adaptive landscapes in changing environments

fitn

ess

“It may metaphorically be said that natural selection is daily andhourly scrutinising, throughout the world, the slightest variations;rejecting those that are bad, preserving and adding up all that aregood; silently and insensibly working, whenever and whereveropportunity offers, at the improvement of each organic being inrelation to its organic and inorganic conditions of life.”

Darwin, The Origin of Species

beak depthaB ab AB Ab

aB

ab

AB

Ab

• Darwin’s “opportunity” depends on the variants present in the population.

• The genotype to phenotype (G→P) map carves out the possible.

• The genotype to phenotype to fitness (G→P→F) map gives information on evolutionary accessibility and evolutionary constraints.

Mapping out Adaptation

beak depthaB ab AB Ab

Page 3: Ben Kerr - Adaptive landscapes in changing environments

Picking the Wright Metaphor

Wright

• In 1932, Sewall Wright was invited to give a non-technical talk on his view of evolution at the sixth International Congress of Genetics.

• Wright (1932) started with a simple idea: a map from genotype to fitness, where “the entire field of possible gene combinations [could] be graded with respect to adaptive value.”

• Thus, a genotype-to-fitness (G→F) map and specification of how genotypes are connected defines an adaptive landscape.

Figure 2 from Wright (1932)

Fitn

ess

Page 4: Ben Kerr - Adaptive landscapes in changing environments

Evolution in the Balance

Genotype Space

Physical Space

deme 1

deme 2

deme 3

deme 4

• Wright felt that the landscape was likely rugged; the problem that occupied him was how a population could move from a lower peak to a higher peak

• His shifting balance theory rests on two assumptions:

1. Epistasis leading to distinct “peaks” (rugged landscape)

2. The population is structured (as semi-isolated sparsely populated demes)

• Wright’s shifting balance invokes several processes (mutation, selection, drift, and migration):

Phase 1: Demes drift over the adaptive landscape

Phase 2: Selection drives demes to new peaks

Phase 3: Competition between demes where the most fit pulls the metapopulation to its peak

• Despite the importance of Wright’s shifting balance to evolution in natural populations, the accompanying metaphor has been very popular.

Page 5: Ben Kerr - Adaptive landscapes in changing environments

Selectively Accessible Paths (to SSWiM Upstream)

• Maynard Smith imagined mutations as steps on a walk through sequence space.

• Think of a game in which one word is changed to another via single letter changes and intermediates are words.

• A path (multiple mutational steps) is selectively accessible if each step increases fitness (takes you uphill).

• Epistasis occurs when the effect of a mutation changes given different background contexts in either:– Magnitude– Sign

• Simple walks along selectively accessible paths occur when:

- Selection is strong- Mutation is weak

• In “SSWM” conditions, the population can be thought of as a point moving through a directed network, where the topology is dictated by the adaptive landscape.

OPA

OPO

OVA

EPA

OVO

EPO

EVA

EVO

WORDWORE GORE GONE GENE

AT

IT

ASAT AS

ISIS

WERD

WEIRDWED

WERE

WIRED

A T

SI

wo

rd f

req

.

genotype space

fitn

ess

Gavrilet’s (1997)“holey” landscape

(necessary for ruggedness)

fitn

ess

low

high

TS

TS

WORDS FROM BEACON PROPOSALS

OENeg.

OEPos.

Burch Chao Weinreich

Page 6: Ben Kerr - Adaptive landscapes in changing environments

Changing Environments: Changing Metaphors?

• The standard incarnation of the metaphor does not emphasize the role of the environment and the role of the evolving organism on the environment.

• Partly in response to Wright’s shifting balance process, Fisher argued that environmental change could lead to movement from a former peak.

• Wright also acknowledged that environmental change could move populations in genotype space

fitn

ess

low

high

OPA

OPO

OVA

EPA

OVO

EPO

EVA

EVO

WORDS FROM BEACON PROPOSALS

OPA

OPO

OVA

EPA

OVO

EPO

EVA

EVO

WORDS FROM 1950’s NEW ZEALAND

OPA

OPO

OVA

EPA

OVO

EPO

EVA

EVO

WORDS FROM ENVIRONMENTAL LIT

Page 7: Ben Kerr - Adaptive landscapes in changing environments

Evolution in Changing and Changed Environments• When the landscape is

rugged (e.g., due to genetic epistasis), the population can become trapped on a sub-optimal peak.

• A changing environment can move a population to a new peak (perhaps a higher one).

• An environment changed by organisms can also move a population to new places.

• Coevolution or niche construction can have a diversifying or concentrating effect.

referenceenvironment

alternateenvironment

referenceenvironment

referenceenvironment

alteredenvironment

referenceenvironment

Page 8: Ben Kerr - Adaptive landscapes in changing environments

Adapting the Adaptive Landscape

abAb

aB

ABenvironment

ab

AbaB

ABenvironment

ab

AbaB

AB

environment

ab AbaB ABAB

• How might we visualize evolution under SSWM conditions, but where the environment changes exogenously?

• The landscapes can be simplified to directed networks.

• The networks can be stacked in an ordered way.

• Evolution can be understood as movement down the wall.

• Also, epistasis can be read off the wall:– Genetic

– Environmental

Page 9: Ben Kerr - Adaptive landscapes in changing environments

Network Approach: Application to Multi-Drug Resistance• Let’s consider microbial

evolution under changing drugs.

• When drugs change, selectively accessible paths can change.

• Cycles are thus selectively feasible.

- Cycles have been found (Goulart et al. 2013).

Miriam Barlow

• Possible “evolutionary flow” under multiple drugs is given by connections among the strongly connected clusters in the union of the separate networks.

- In the b-lactam data, many (but not all) “sink” clusters are single genotypes.

• Accessible paths between two genotypes under multiple drugs can be enumerated.

- Certain combinations of drugs exposure may make multi-drug resistance more likely.

000

100

010

001

110

101

011

111sink

connector

connector

source

Number of Accessible Paths

Distribution of Sink Sizes

size

fre

qu

ency

Page 10: Ben Kerr - Adaptive landscapes in changing environments

00 10

01 11

Network Approach: Application to Coevolution• One of the most important

components of “the environment” involves interacting species.

• How might we represent “the landscape” for a coevolving pair of species?

• One approach could involve consideration of an “expanded genotype”–simply the concatenation of genotypes into a single “super-genotype”

• Under SSWM assumptions, coevolution involves movement in different dimensions and epistasis (intra- and inter-) can be gauged. 00 10

01 11

0000

0001

0010

0011

0100

0101

0110

0111

1000

1001

1010

1011

1100

1101

1110

1111

Page 11: Ben Kerr - Adaptive landscapes in changing environments

ISSUES TO DISCUSS

1. RESEARCH DIRECTIONS: What are the most exciting experimental directions to pursue in exploring evolution in changing environments? Are there obvious evolution experiments (with microbes, Avidians, etc.) that would contribute to deeper understanding? What are the most pressing theoretical issues to address? What computational/engineering contributions would have the highest impact? Does the form of environmental change (exogenous/endogenous) matter?

2. VISUALIZATION: What are the best ways to visualize evolution in changing environments? Can/should the landscape metaphor be salvaged? Are network approaches valuable (and should we be focusing on static topology or dynamic movement on networks)? How should environments be visually represented? Does it matter if the environment is abiotic/biotic or exogenous/endogenous? Does the best way to visualize adaptation in changing worlds depend on assumptions (e.g., SSWM) of the evolutionary process, and how might it change with different assumptions?

3. BROADER APPLICATIONS: What are the most pressing applications of these topics? Climate change? Antibiotic resistance? Are landscape metaphors (or network approaches) helpful in addressing these issues? What is currently most necessary for understanding evolution in changing environments in a way that has relevance for these broader applications?

4. WRITE-IN: Intersection between evolution and multi-modal optimization problems…