Back

Phenotypic complexity determines the predictability of molecular convergence

Jiang, D.; Pennell, M.; Sallan, L.

2026-03-05 evolutionary biology
10.64898/2026.03.04.709483 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Whether the outcomes of evolution are predictable remains a central question in evolutionary biology. Convergent evolution, in which similar phenotypes arise independently in distinct lineages, is often interpreted as evidence of predictability under shared selective pressures. However, empirical studies have shown that convergent phenotypes can exhibit similar or disparate molecular bases, and no general frame-work predicts when convergence should occur. Here, we show that phenotypic complexity determines the extent of convergence under shared conditions. Using a deliberately minimal abstraction linking genotype and phenotype and evolutionary simulations, we investigated how regulatory gene expression programs evolve under selection for shared phenotypic optima. We find that phenotypes of low complexity can be produced by diverse regulator expression programs, permitting phenotypic convergence despite molecular divergence. However, as the complexity of the target phenotype increases, the variety of viable regulatory solutions decreases, funneling independently evolving lineages towards similar expression programs. In this regime, molecular convergence emerges as a predictable consequence of selection acting on finite regulatory repertoires, consistent with the phenomenon of "deep homology" observed in structures like eyes and limbs. Allowing evolutionary changes in regulator-target interactions relaxes these constraints and enhances divergence in expression between phenotypically convergent species. Together, our results provide general expectations for predicting when phenotypic convergence should be accompanied by convergent genetic mechanisms, and shed light on the causes of convergence in a broad range of phenotypic traits.

Matching journals

The top 5 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.