Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24372601›Full record

ArticleEvolution; international journal of organic evolution2014

Rates of fitness decline and rebound suggest pervasive epistasis.

L Perfeito, A Sousa, T Bataillon, I Gordo

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Evolution; international journal of organic evolution, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 58 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
58citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

58 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Epistasis decreases with increasing antibiotic pressure but not temperature.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2023
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

L PerfeitoInstituto Gulbenkian de Ciência, Oeiras, Portugal; The authors contributed equally to this work.
A Sousa
T Bataillon
I Gordo

Funding

European Research Council 260421
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Unraveling the factors that determine the rate of adaptation is a major question in evolutionary biology. One key parameter is the effect of a new mutation on fitness, which invariably depends on the environment and genetic background. The fate of a mutation also depends on population size, which determines the amount of drift it will experience. Here, we manipulate both population size and genotype composition and follow adaptation of 23 distinct Escherichia coli genotypes. These have previously accumulated mutations under intense genetic drift and encompass a substantial fitness variation. A simple rule is uncovered: the net fitness change is negatively correlated with the fitness of the genotype in which new mutations appear--a signature of epistasis. We find that Fisher's geometrical model can account for the observed patterns of fitness change and infer the parameters of this model that best fit the data, using Approximate Bayesian Computation. We estimate a genomic mutation rate of 0.01 per generation for fitness altering mutations, albeit with a large confidence interval, a mean fitness effect of mutations of -0.01, and an effective number of traits nine in mutS(-) E. coli. This framework can be extended to confront a broader range of models with data and test different classes of fitness landscape models.

Indexed as

Epistasis, GeneticEvolution, MolecularGenetic FitnessModels, GeneticMutation RateEscherichia coliEpistasisfisher geometrical modelfitness recoverymutation accumulationrate of adaptation

Identifiers

PMID24372601
PMCPMC3912910

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.