1887

Microbiology Society logo

Volume 169, Issue 10

Mutational hotspots lead to robust but suboptimal adaptive outcomes in certain environments Open Access

This article is part of the Microbial Evolution collection.

Abstract

The observed mutational spectrum of adaptive outcomes can be constrained by many factors. For example, mutational biases can narrow the observed spectrum by increasing the rate of mutation at isolated sites in the genome. In contrast, complex environments can shift the observed spectrum by defining fitness consequences of mutational routes. We investigate the impact of different nutrient environments on the evolution of motility in Pf0-2x (an engineered non-motile derivative of Pf0-1) in the presence and absence of a strong mutational hotspot. Previous work has shown that this mutational hotspot can be built and broken via six silent mutations, which provide rapid access to a mutation that rescues swimming motility and confers the strongest swimming phenotype in specific environments. Here, we evolved a hotspot and non-hotspot variant strain of Pf0-2x for motility under nutrient-rich (LB) and nutrient-limiting (M9) environmental conditions. We observed the hotspot strain consistently evolved faster across all environmental conditions and its mutational spectrum was robust to environmental differences. However, the non-hotspot strain had a distinct mutational spectrum that changed depending on the nutrient environment. Interestingly, while alternative adaptive mutations in nutrient-rich environments were equal to, or less effective than, the hotspot mutation, the majority of these mutations in nutrient-limited conditions produced superior swimmers. Our competition experiments mirrored these findings, underscoring the role of environment in defining both the mutational spectrum and the associated phenotype strength. This indicates that while mutational hotspots working in concert with natural selection can speed up access to robust adaptive mutations (which can provide a competitive advantage in evolving populations), they can limit exploration of the mutational landscape, restricting access to potentially stronger phenotypes in specific environments.

  • Received:
  • Accepted:
  • Published Online:
Keyword(s): constrained evolution , evolutionary rescue , mutational bias , nutrient environment , predicting evolution and Pseudomonas fluorescens
Funding
This study was supported by the:
  • Royal Society (Award RGF\EA\180265)
    • Principle Award Recipient: TiffanyB Taylor
© 2023 The Authors
  • This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License. This article was made open access via a Publish and Read agreement between the Microbiology Society and the corresponding author’s institution.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/micro/10.1099/mic.0.001395
2023-10-10
2024-05-17
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/micro/169/10/mic001395.html?itemId=/content/journal/micro/10.1099/mic.0.001395&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Martin A, Orgogozo V. The loci of repeated evolution: a catalog of genetic hotspots of phenotypic variation. Evolution 2013; 67:1235–1250 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Lourenço M, Ramiro RS, Güleresi D, Barroso-Batista J, Xavier KB et al. A mutational hotspot and strong selection contribute to the order of mutations selected for during Escherichia coli adaptation to the gut. PLoS Genet 2016; 12:e1006420 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Baeissa H, Benstead-Hume G, Richardson CJ, Pearl FMG. Identification and analysis of mutational hotspots in oncogenes and tumour suppressors. Oncotarget 2017; 8:21290–21304 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Chattopadhyay S, Weissman SJ, Minin VN, Russo TA, Dykhuizen DE et al. High frequency of hotspot mutations in core genes of Escherichia coli due to short-term positive selection. Proc Natl Acad Sci 2009; 106:12412–12417 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Weber S, Ramirez C, Doerfler W. Signal hotspot mutations in SARS-CoV-2 genomes evolve as the virus spreads and actively replicates in different parts of the world. Virus Res 2020; 289:198170 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Vogwill T, Kojadinovic M, Furió V, MacLean RC. Testing the role of genetic background in parallel evolution using the comparative experimental evolution of antibiotic resistance. Mol Biol Evol 2014; 31:3314–3323 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Nesta AV, Tafur D, Beck CR. Hotspots of human mutation. Trends Genet 2021; 37:717–729 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Horton JS, Flanagan LM, Jackson RW, Priest NK, Taylor TB. A mutational hotspot that determines highly repeatable evolution can be built and broken by silent genetic changes. Nat Commun 2021; 12:6092 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Shepherd MJ, Horton JS, Taylor TB. A near-deterministic mutational hotspot in Pseudomonas fluorescens is constructed by multiple interacting genomic features. Mol Biol Evol 2022; 39:msac132 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Lässig M, Mustonen V, Walczak AM. Predicting evolution. Nat Ecol Evol 2017; 1:77 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Nghe P, de Vos MGJ, Kingma E, Kogenaru M, Poelwijk FJ et al. Predicting evolution using regulatory architecture. Annu Rev Biophys 2020; 49:181–197 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Orgogozo V. Replaying the tape of life in the twenty-first century. Interface Focus 2015; 5:20150057 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Bull JJ, Molineux IJ. Predicting evolution from genomics: experimental evolution of bacteriophage T7. Heredity 2008; 100:453–463 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Kryazhimskiy S, Rice DP, Jerison ER, Desai MM. Microbial evolution. Global epistasis makes adaptation predictable despite sequence-level stochasticity. Science 2014; 344:1519–1522 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Lind PA, Libby E, Herzog J, Rainey PB. Predicting mutational routes to new adaptive phenotypes. Elife 2019; 8:e38822 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Gallie J, Bertels F, Remigi P, Ferguson GC, Nestmann S et al. Repeated phenotypic evolution by different genetic routes in Pseudomonas fluorescens SBW25. Mol Biol Evol 2019; 36:1071–1085 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Lind PA, Farr AD, Rainey PB. Evolutionary convergence in experimental Pseudomonas populations. ISME J 2017; 11:589–600 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Barrick JE, Lenski RE. Genome-wide mutational diversity in an evolving population of Escherichia coli. In Cold Spring Harbor Symposia on Quantitative Biology vol 74 Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press; 2009 pp 119–129
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Elena SF, Lenski RE. Evolution experiments with microorganisms: the dynamics and genetic bases of adaptation. Nat Rev Genet 2003; 4:457–469 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Maharjan RP, Ferenci T. A shifting mutational landscape in 6 nutritional states: stress-induced mutagenesis as a series of distinct stress input-mutation output relationships. PLoS Biol 2017; 15:e2001477 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Maharjan RP, Ferenci T. The impact of growth rate and environmental factors on mutation rates and spectra in Escherichia coli. Environ Microbiol Rep 2018; 10:626–633 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Turner CB, Marshall CW, Cooper VS. Parallel genetic adaptation across environments differing in mode of growth or resource availability. Evol Lett 2018; 2:355–367 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Bailey SF, Rodrigue N, Kassen R. The effect of selection environment on the probability of parallel evolution. Mol Biol Evol 2015; 32:1436–1448 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Cooper TF, Lenski RE. Experimental evolution with E. coli in diverse resource environments. I. Fluctuating environments promote divergence of replicate populations. BMC Evol Biol 2010; 10:11 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Taylor TB, Mulley G, Dills AH, Alsohim AS, McGuffin LJ et al. Evolutionary resurrection of flagellar motility via rewiring of the nitrogen regulation system. Science 2015; 347:1014–1017 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Alsohim AS, Taylor TB, Barrett GA, Gallie J, Zhang X-X et al. The biosurfactant viscosin produced by Pseudomonas fluorescens SBW25 aids spreading motility and plant growth promotion. Environ Microbiol 2014; 16:2267–2281 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Forchhammer K, Lüddecke J. Sensory properties of the PII signalling protein family. FEBS J 2016; 283:425–437 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Forchhammer K. Glutamine signalling in bacteria. Frontiers in Bioscience. Front Biosci 2007; 12:358–370 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Hervás AB, Canosa I, Little R, Dixon R, Santero E. NtrC-dependent regulatory network for nitrogen assimilation in Pseudomonas putida. J Bacteriol 2009; 191:6123–6135 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Hervás AB, Canosa I, Santero E. Transcriptome analysis of Pseudomonas putida in response to nitrogen availability. J Bacteriol 2008; 190:416–420 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Zhang X-X, Rainey PB. Dual involvement of CbrAB and NtrBC in the regulation of histidine utilization in Pseudomonas fluorescens SBW25. Genetics 2008; 178:185–195 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Leigh JA, Dodsworth JA. Nitrogen regulation in bacteria and archaea. Annu Rev Microbiol 2007; 61:349–377 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Reitzer L. Nitrogen assimilation and global regulation in Escherichia coli. Annu Rev Microbiol 2003; 57:155–176 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Horton JS, Ali SUP, Taylor TB. Transient mutation bias increases the predictability of evolution on an empirical genotype–phenotype landscape. Phil Trans R Soc B 2023; 378:1877 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Chandler CH, Chari S, Dworkin I. Does your gene need a background check? How genetic background impacts the analysis of mutations, genes, and evolution. Trends Genet 2013; 29:358–366 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Mullis MN, Matsui T, Schell R, Foree R, Ehrenreich IM. The complex underpinnings of genetic background effects. Nat Commun 2018; 9:3548 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Silby MW, Cerdeño-Tárraga AM, Vernikos GS, Giddens SR, Jackson RW et al. Genomic and genetic analyses of diversity and plant interactions of Pseudomonas fluorescens. Genome Biol 2009; 10:R51 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Robinson JT, Thorvaldsdóttir H, Winckler W, Guttman M, Lander ES et al. Integrative genomics viewer. Nat Biotechnol 2011; 29:24–26 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Seemann T. Snippy: fast bacterial variant calling from NGS reads; 2015 https://github.com/tseemann/snippy
  40. Sprouffske K, Wagner A. Growthcurver: an R package for obtaining interpretable metrics from microbial growth curves. BMC Bioinformatics 2016; 17:172 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Choi K-H, Gaynor JB, White KG, Lopez C, Bosio CM et al. A Tn7-based broad-range bacterial cloning and expression system. Nat Methods 2005; 2:443–448 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Liu Y, Rainey PB, Zhang X-X. Mini-Tn7 vectors for studying post-transcriptional gene expression in Pseudomonas. J Microbiol Methods 2014; 107:182–185 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Wickham H. Ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis Springer-Verlag New York; 2016 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Horton JS. Syn-Sequence-Parallel-Evolution [Source Data] OSF; 2021 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Stern DL, Orgogozo V. The loci of evolution: how predictable is genetic evolution?. Evolution 2008; 62:2155–2177 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Kapel N, Caballero JD, MacLean RC. Localized pmrB hypermutation drives the evolution of colistin heteroresistance. Cell Rep 2022; 39:110929 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Hefetz I, Israeli O, Bilinsky G, Plaschkes I, Hazkani-Covo E et al. A reversible mutation in a genomic hotspot saves bacterial swarms from extinction. iScience 2023; 26:106043 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Fraebel DT, Mickalide H, Schnitkey D, Merritt J, Kuhlman TE et al. Environment determines evolutionary trajectory in a constrained phenotypic space. Elife 2017; 6:e24669 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Maharjan RP, Ferenci T. A shifting mutational landscape in 6 nutritional states: stress-induced mutagenesis as a series of distinct stress input-mutation output relationships. PLoS Biol 2017; 15:e2001477 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Cohen-Kupiec R, Marx CJ, Leigh JA. Function and regulation of glnA in the methanogenic archaeon Methanococcus maripaludis. J Bacteriol 1999; 181:256–261 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Walker MC, van der Donk WA. The many roles of glutamate in metabolism. J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol 2016; 43:419–430 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Yan Y, Yang J, Dou Y, Chen M, Ping S et al. Nitrogen fixation island and rhizosphere competence traits in the genome of root-associated Pseudomonas stutzeri A1501. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2008; 105:7564–7569 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Millanao AR, Mora AY, Saavedra CP, Villagra NA, Mora GC et al. Inactivation of glutamine synthetase-coding gene glnA increases susceptibility to quinolones through increasing outer membrane protein F in Salmonella enterica serovar typhi. Front Microbiol 2020; 11:428 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Tucker CM, Fukami T. Environmental variability counteracts priority effects to facilitate species coexistence: evidence from nectar microbes. Proc Biol Sci 2014; 281:20132637 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Chappell CR, Dhami MK, Bitter MC, Czech L, Herrera Paredes S et al. Wide-ranging consequences of priority effects governed by an overarching factor. Elife 2022; 11:e79647 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Weidlich EWA, Nelson CR, Maron JL, Callaway RM, Delory BM et al. Priority effects and ecological restoration. Restor Ecol 2021; 29: [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Cano AV, Rozhoňová H, Stoltzfus A, McCandlish DM, Payne JL. Mutation bias shapes the spectrum of adaptive substitutions. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2022; 119: [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Payne JL, Menardo F, Trauner A, Borrell S, Gygli SM et al. Transition bias influences the evolution of antibiotic resistance in Mycobacterium tuberculosis. PLoS Biol 2019; 17:e3000265 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Stoltzfus A, McCandlish DM. Mutational biases influence parallel adaptation. Mol Biol Evol 2017; 34:2163–2172 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Sane M, Diwan GD, Bhat BA, Wahl LM, Agashe D. Shifts in mutation spectra enhance access to beneficial mutations. bioRxiv 2022p. 2020.09.05.284158 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journal/micro/10.1099/mic.0.001395
Loading
Mutational hotspots lead to robust but suboptimal adaptive outcomes in certain environments
Microbiology 169, 001395 (2023); https://doi.org/10.1099/mic.0.001395
/content/journal/micro/10.1099/mic.0.001395
/content/journal/micro/10.1099/mic.0.001395
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Supplements

Supplementary material 1

PDF

Most cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error