Back

Genetic and environmental interactions outweigh mitonuclear coevolution for complex traits in Drosophila

Darwin, L. J.; Lemieux, F. A.; Bachtel, R. Z.; Blocker, J. H.; Brown, C. P.; Lerman, J. D.; Maule, O. C.; Raynes, Y.; Rand, D. M.

2026-01-14 evolutionary biology
10.1101/2025.11.24.689096 bioRxiv
Show abstract

The interdependent relationship between mitochondrial and nuclear genomes is a powerful model for understanding how epistasis shapes the architecture and evolution of complex traits. Once considered a neutral marker, mitochondrial DNA variation is now recognized as critical to phenotypic evolution because of its epistatic interactions and history of coevolution with the nuclear genome. A central challenge in evolutionary genetics is to quantify the relative importance of stabilizing and directional selection shaping complex trait distributions within and among species. Both can act on interacting and/or co-evolving genes contributing to quantitative traits, but resolving their relative roles is complicated by the complex architecture of most traits. Here, we use a panel of 90 Drosophila mitonuclear genotypes to quantify the relative contributions of mitochondrial, nuclear, and environmental variation and their interactions to four metabolically demanding complex traits. We sample both within-species and between-species mitochondrial variation and observe stronger interaction effects attributable to within-species variation, consistent with stabilizing selection maintaining mitonuclear function. Additionally, culturing the flies on a mitochondrial Complex I inhibitor, rotenone, reveals significant genotype x environment (GxE and GxGxE) interaction effects, providing insight into how genetic variation can be maintained across changing environments. Our results have broader implications in medicine, where mitochondrial DNA donors with longer purifying selection histories may be safer for mitochondrial replacement therapies.

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.