Back

Using a simplified Rough Mount Fuji model to disentangle how multi-peaked fitness landscapes can be highly navigable

Hunter, K. E.; Martin, N. S.

2026-03-21 evolutionary biology
10.64898/2026.03.19.712707 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Evolving populations, especially in the strong-selection-weak-mutation limit, can be modelled as adaptive walks on fitness landscapes, moving in fitness-increasing mutational steps until reaching a fitness peak--a local optimum. Simulations of such adaptive walks--on a multi-peaked empirical landscape of the folA gene and on landscapes generated by the Rough Mount Fuji (RMF) model-- have shown that some landscapes are highly navigable, meaning that the highest x% of peaks are reached by >> x% of adaptive walks. This prompts the question of how adaptive walks can be so successful despite the local, myopic rules behind each adaptive step. Here, we investigate this question using simulations and mathematical approximations of random adaptive walks on a simplified RMF landscape. The landscape has a low-to-intermediate fitness region, whose size reconciles a low peak density with a high peak number. Despite the high number of peaks, walkers are likely to exit this region without terminating at a peak because the probability of a peak transition at each step is low and a fitness gradient guides walkers to the high-fitness region in few steps. Thus, three features are sufficient to explain why adaptive walks in the simplified RMF landscape are likely to reach a small fraction of top-ranking peaks: a low-to-intermediate fitness region with a high number of peaks, a low peak-transition probability, and which is crossed in few steps. We find that these three features are also present in the empirical folA landscape, suggesting that similar principles may apply.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 1%
18.2%
2
Evolution
199 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
9.9%
3
Genetics
225 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
6.7%
4
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B
51 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
6.7%
5
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2130 papers in training set
Top 12%
6.2%
6
Journal of The Royal Society Interface
189 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
6.2%
50% of probability mass above
7
Journal of Theoretical Biology
144 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
4.2%
8
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 29%
4.2%
9
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 41%
3.5%
10
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 29%
3.2%
11
Physical Review E
95 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
2.7%
12
Bulletin of Mathematical Biology
84 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
2.3%
13
Royal Society Open Science
193 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.8%
14
Evolutionary Applications
91 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.7%
15
Molecular Biology and Evolution
488 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.5%
16
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 54%
1.5%
17
BMC Ecology and Evolution
49 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.2%
18
Journal of Evolutionary Biology
98 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.9%
19
Theoretical Population Biology
47 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.9%
20
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
341 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.9%
21
GENETICS
189 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
22
Mathematical Biosciences
42 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
23
The American Naturalist
114 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
24
Nature Ecology & Evolution
113 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.7%
25
BMC Biology
248 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.6%
26
Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution
60 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.6%
27
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 18%
0.6%