ArticleMolecular biology and evolution2022
Evolution of Amino Acid Propensities under Stability-Mediated Epistasis.
Article in Molecular biology and evolution, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Amino acid sequence encodes protein abundance shaped by protein stability at reduced synthesis cost.Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society · 2025Article
- Is Over-parameterization a Problem for Profile Mixture Models?Systematic biology · 2024Article
- Genes and sites under adaptation at the phylogenetic scale also exhibit adaptation at the population-genetic scale.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023Article
- Leucyl-tRNA Synthetase Inhibitor, D-Norvaline, in Combination with Oxacillin, Is Effective against Methicillin-ResistantAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Shifts in amino acid preferences as proteins evolve: A synthesis of experimental and theoretical work.Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Site-specific amino acid preferences are influenced by the genetic background of the protein. The preferences for resident amino acids are expected to, on average, increase over time because of replacements at other sites-a nonadaptive phenomenon referred to as the "evolutionary Stokes shift." Alternatively, decreases in resident amino acid propensity have recently been viewed as evidence of adaptations to external environmental changes. Using population genetics theory and thermodynamic stability constraints, we show that nonadaptive evolution can lead to both positive and negative shifts in propensities following the fixation of an amino acid, emphasizing that the detection of negative shifts is not conclusive evidence of adaptation. By examining propensity shifts from when an amino acid is first accepted at a site until it is subsequently replaced, we find that ≈50% of sites show a decrease in the propensity for the newly resident amino acid while the remaining sites show an increase. Furthermore, the distributions of the magnitudes of positive and negative shifts were comparable. Preferences were often conserved via a significant negative autocorrelation in propensity changes-increases in propensities often followed by decreases, and vice versa. Lastly, we explore the underlying mechanisms that lead propensities to fluctuate. We observe that stabilizing replacements increase the mutational tolerance at a site and in doing so decrease the propensity for the resident amino acid. In contrast, destabilizing substitutions result in more rugged fitness landscapes that tend to favor the resident amino acid. In summary, our results characterize propensity trajectories under nonadaptive stability-constrained evolution against which evidence of adaptations should be calibrated.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.