Back

Inferring viral proteins that act as public goods during coinfection

Maoz, Y.; Meir, M.; Ben Nun, N.; Ram, Y.; Stern, A.

2026-07-03 evolutionary biology
10.64898/2026.07.02.736036 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Interactions among individuals in structured populations can alter fitness effects of mutations and reshape evolutionary processes. In many systems, including bacteria, yeast, and viruses, such interactions often result in public goods: gene products that are costly to produce yet exploitable by others. During viral coinfection of the same cell, gene products from one genome may complement deleterious mutations in another, allowing defective genomes to persist. Yet it remains difficult to infer which proteins are shareable from population sequencing data, because mutation, selection, drift, and complementation are intertwined. Here, we developed a quantitative framework to infer protein-specific public goods in the RNA bacteriophage MS2, which encodes only four proteins. We analyzed experimental evolution data generated under two multiplicity-of-infection (MOI) regimes: low MOI, where coinfection is rare, and high MOI, where coinfection is common. We first compared empirical mutation patterns between regimes and then applied a Wright-Fisher model combined with simulation-based Bayesian inference using neural posterior estimation. In a two-stage strategy, gene-specific fitness effects were inferred from low-MOI data and subsequently used to estimate protein sharing under high-MOI conditions. Across two statistical inference frameworks, lysis emerged as the strongest public-good candidate, replicase and coat showed an intermediate signal, and maturation showed the weakest evidence for sharing. Together, our results show that viral proteins differ markedly in their propensity to act as public goods. More broadly, they illustrate how coinfection can generate density-dependent selection, a general feature of social evolution that may shape evolutionary dynamics.

Matching journals

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

1
Virus Evolution
155 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
21.7%
2
Molecular Biology and Evolution
542 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
17.9%
3
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2444 papers in training set
Top 7%
6.5%
4
PLOS Computational Biology
1863 papers in training set
Top 7%
5.3%
50% of probability mass above
5
Evolution
225 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
5.3%
6
eLife
5828 papers in training set
Top 26%
4.7%
7
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
393 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.1%
8
Genome Biology and Evolution
338 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.1%
9
BMC Evolutionary Biology
18 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.7%
10
PLOS Genetics
862 papers in training set
Top 5%
2.7%
11
PLOS Biology
486 papers in training set
Top 3%
2.6%
12
The American Naturalist
125 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
2.3%
13
Nature Communications
5641 papers in training set
Top 41%
2.3%
14
Science Advances
1243 papers in training set
Top 18%
1.8%
15
Ecology Letters
135 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.5%
16
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
72 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.5%
17
GENETICS
483 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.3%
18
Peer Community Journal
281 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.1%
19
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 76%
0.8%
20
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B
51 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.8%
21
Systematic Biology
144 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.8%
22
Evolution Letters
85 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
23
PLOS Pathogens
820 papers in training set
Top 10%
0.8%
24
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 66%
0.6%