Chance, contingency, and necessity in the experimental evolution of ancestral proteins
Xie, V. C.; Pu, J.; Metzger, B. P. H.; Thornton, J. W.; Dickinson, B.
Show abstract
To understand why evolution produced the biological systems that exist today, we must know how important chance, contingency, and necessity were during history. Previous observations suggest that each of these modes of causality affects evolution in various settings, but their relative roles and interactions are not well characterized because they have never been systematically assessed in a single system or on a timescale relevant to evolutionary history. To this end, we reconstructed ancestral B-cell-lymphoma-2-family proteins and developed a continuous evolution method to select for defined protein-protein interaction specificities. By repeatedly evolving a series of ancestral proteins to acquire specificities that occurred during history, we show that contingency steadily overwhelms chance and erases necessity as the primary cause of sequence variation in proteins over long phylogenetic timescales. As a result, evolutionary trajectories launched from distant starting points are essentially unpredictable, even under strong and identical selection pressures. Genetic dissection of the outcomes shows that chance arises because numerous sets of mutations can alter specificity at any point in time, while contingency arises because historical substitutions change these sets. Patterns of variation in extant protein sequences are therefore largely the idiosyncratic product of a particular course of unpredictable historical events.
Matching journals
The top 1 journal accounts for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- PRDM9 losses in vertebrates are coupled to those of paralogs ZCWPW1 and ZCWPW2 95%
- Distinct evolutionary trajectories of SARS-CoV-2 interacting proteins in bats and primates identify important host determinants of COVID-19 95%
- Genomic islands of differentiation in a rapid avian radiation have been driven by recent selective sweeps 95%
Similar papers in this journal
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.