Back

The effect of genome organisation on selection efficiency in two contrasted plant species

James, J.; Lascoux, M.

2026-07-15 evolutionary biology
10.64898/2025.12.19.695387 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Does the distribution of fitness effects of new mutations vary across the genome? Under the classical Fisher Geometric Model (FGM) we might not expect it to. In FGM, phenotypic traits are envisioned as dimensions of a landscape, with fitness determined by position in the landscape, i.e., the particular combination of traits of an individual. New mutations are represented by vectors that move from an ancestral to a new phenotype. In classical FGM these vectors affect all trait dimensions simultaneously (universal pleiotropy). However, introducing partial and modular pleiotropy into an FGM framework leads to an expectation that parameters of the DFE will vary with mutational pleiotropy-the number of traits affected by individual mutations. Here we address this prediction by investigating whether traits related to mutational pleiotropy, expression level and network connectivity, affect the parameters of the DFE using whole genome data from A. thaliana and C. grandiflora, two closely related Brassica species that vary significantly in their demography and mating system, and therefore, in effective population size and the effects of linked selection. Results were similar across both species. We found that expression level and network connectivity were predictive of the parameters of the deleterious DFE, even once co-correlations among genome biology traits were accounted for. Our results suggest that, across the genome, molecular evolutio(high mutational pleiotropy). nary patterns agree with the predictions of FGM, albeit relaxing the assumption of universal pleiotropy, and that variation in mutational pleiotropy among genes is sufficient to have detectible effects on the DFE. Significance statementHow do the effects of new mutations vary across the genome? If mutations in some genes affect many traits (high mutational pleiotropy), we hypothesise they will be more strongly deleterious, with lower variance in their selective effects. We test this by investigating the distribution of effects of new mutations across genes that vary in features that are related to mutational pleiotropy: expression level, gene network connectivity, and number of associated GO terms. The mean strength and coefficient of variation of selection of new mutations varied across genes with different features in the manner expected by our hypothesis. This demonstrates that important parameters of molecular evolution can vary across the genome with genome architecture.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Evolution
225 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
17.9%
2
Evolution Letters
85 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
12.5%
3
Journal of Evolutionary Biology
110 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
7.6%
4
GENETICS
483 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
7.0%
5
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
393 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
6.5%
50% of probability mass above
6
Genome Biology and Evolution
338 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
5.3%
7
PLOS Genetics
862 papers in training set
Top 3%
4.7%
8
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2444 papers in training set
Top 14%
3.9%
9
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
72 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.9%
10
BMC Evolutionary Biology
18 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.1%
11
Molecular Biology and Evolution
542 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.1%
12
The American Naturalist
125 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.8%
13
Heredity
64 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.4%
14
Peer Community Journal
281 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.4%
15
New Phytologist
346 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.3%
16
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B
51 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.1%
17
Nature Ecology & Evolution
18 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.1%
18
Journal of Heredity
42 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.0%
19
Nature Communications
5641 papers in training set
Top 54%
1.0%
20
PLOS Computational Biology
1863 papers in training set
Top 19%
0.9%
21
Molecular Ecology
336 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
22
Science Advances
1243 papers in training set
Top 32%
0.8%
23
PLOS Biology
486 papers in training set
Top 13%
0.8%
24
eLife
5828 papers in training set
Top 67%
0.8%
25
G3: Genes, Genomes, Genetics
252 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.8%
26
Systematic Biology
144 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.6%