Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36121840›Full record

ArticlePLoS computational biology2022

On the incongruence of genotype-phenotype and fitness landscapes.

Malvika Srivastava, Joshua L Payne

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS computational biology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

2 authors.

Malvika SrivastavaInstitute of Integrative Biology, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0003-0757-4990
Joshua L PayneInstitute of Integrative Biology, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-2978-8423

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The mapping from genotype to phenotype to fitness typically involves multiple nonlinearities that can transform the effects of mutations. For example, mutations may contribute additively to a phenotype, but their effects on fitness may combine non-additively because selection favors a low or intermediate value of that phenotype. This can cause incongruence between the topographical properties of a fitness landscape and its underlying genotype-phenotype landscape. Yet, genotype-phenotype landscapes are often used as a proxy for fitness landscapes to study the dynamics and predictability of evolution. Here, we use theoretical models and empirical data on transcription factor-DNA interactions to systematically study the incongruence of genotype-phenotype and fitness landscapes when selection favors a low or intermediate phenotypic value. Using the theoretical models, we prove a number of fundamental results. For example, selection for low or intermediate phenotypic values does not change simple sign epistasis into reciprocal sign epistasis, implying that genotype-phenotype landscapes with only simple sign epistasis motifs will always give rise to single-peaked fitness landscapes under such selection. More broadly, we show that such selection tends to create fitness landscapes that are more rugged than the underlying genotype-phenotype landscape, but this increased ruggedness typically does not frustrate adaptive evolution because the local adaptive peaks in the fitness landscape tend to be nearly as tall as the global peak. Many of these results carry forward to the empirical genotype-phenotype landscapes, which may help to explain why low- and intermediate-affinity transcription factor-DNA interactions are so prevalent in eukaryotic gene regulation.

Indexed as

Epistasis, GeneticModels, GeneticGenetic FitnessGenotypeMutationPhenotypeTranscription FactorsTranscription Factors

Identifiers

PMID36121840
PMCPMC9521842

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.