Back

Phenotypic heterogeneity in lag reflects an evolutionarily stable bet-hedging strategy

George, A. V.; Wingreen, N. S.; Reddy, G.

2025-11-04 systems biology
10.1101/2025.11.02.686100 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Single-cell experiments in yeast reveal two distinct heritable phenotypes--arresters and recoverers--when a clonal population experiences a negative shift in its growth environment. Recoverers exhibit a variable yet finite lag before resuming growth in the new environment, whereas arresters remain in a non-growing, arrested state until more favorable conditions return. Although the diversification of individual cells into arresters and recoverers is a robust phenomenon, it remains unclear whether this coexistence constitutes an evolutionarily stable strategy. Here, we demonstrate that a heterogeneous strategy composed of both arrester and recoverer phenotypes maximizes long-term population fitness across a broad spectrum of growth-lag trade-offs. Our analysis employs a dynamic programming framework to identify the fitness-maximizing distribution of phenotypes for populations that stochastically switch between preferred and non-preferred environments. We propose a minimal model incorporating metabolism, growth, and enzyme allocation to explain the physiological origin of a power-law growth-lag trade-off that favors phenotypic heterogeneity. The theory predicts a nontrivial relationship between the fraction of recoverers and their lag time, which aligns with existing data from wild yeast strains, evolved isolates, and variations in pre-shift growth conditions. This relationship suggests an evolutionary rheostat-like mechanism that enables populations to rapidly adapt to changing environmental conditions.

Published in PRX Life (predicted rank #6) · training set

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"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.