A direct experimental test of Ohno’s hypothesis
Curation statements for this article:-
Curated by eLife
eLife assessment
This fundamental study uses a creative experimental system to directly test Ohno's hypothesis, which describes how and why new genes might evolve by duplication of existing ones. In agreement with existing criticism of Ohno's original idea, the authors present compelling evidence that having two gene copies does not speed up the evolution of a new function as posited by Ohno, but instead leads to the rapid inactivation of one of the copies through the accumulation of mostly deleterious mutations. These findings will be of broad interest to evolutionary biologists and geneticists.
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (eLife)
- Evaluated articles (preLights)
- Evolutionary Biology (eLife)
Abstract
Gene duplication drives evolution by providing raw material for proteins with novel functions. The oldest and historically most influential hypothesis about the evolutionary fate and potential of duplicated genes has been proposed by Susumu Ohno in 1970. This hypothesis essentially posits that gene duplication can help genes tolerate new mutations and thus facilitates the evolution of new phenotypes Competing hypotheses argue that deleterious mutations will usually inactivate gene duplicates too rapidly for Ohno’s hypothesis to work. Here, we provide a first direct experimental test of Ohno’s hypothesis. Specifically, we evolved one or two genes encoding a fluorescent protein in Escherichia coli through multiple rounds of mutagenesis and selection. We then analyzed the genotypic and phenotypic evolutionary dynamics of the evolving populations through high-throughput DNA sequencing, biochemical assays, and engineering of selected variants. In support of Ohno’s hypothesis, populations carrying two gene copies displayed higher mutational robustness than those carrying a single gene copy. As a consequence, the double-copy populations experienced relaxed purifying selection, evolved higher phenotypic and genetic diversity, carried more mutations and accumulated combinations of key beneficial mutations earlier. However, their phenotypic evolution was not accelerated, possibly because one gene copy rapidly became inactivated by deleterious mutations. Our work provides an experimental platform to test models of evolution by gene duplication, and it supports alternatives to Ohno’s hypothesis.
Article activity feed
-
-
-
eLife assessment
This fundamental study uses a creative experimental system to directly test Ohno's hypothesis, which describes how and why new genes might evolve by duplication of existing ones. In agreement with existing criticism of Ohno's original idea, the authors present compelling evidence that having two gene copies does not speed up the evolution of a new function as posited by Ohno, but instead leads to the rapid inactivation of one of the copies through the accumulation of mostly deleterious mutations. These findings will be of broad interest to evolutionary biologists and geneticists.
-
Reviewer #1 (Public Review):
Overview:
The authors construct a pair of E. coli populations that differ by a single gene duplication in a selectable fluorescent protein. They then evolve the two populations under differing selective regimes to assess whether the end result of the selective process is a "better" phenotype when starting with duplicated copies. Importantly, their starting duplicated population is structured to avoid the duplication-amplification process often seen in bacterial artificial evolution experiments. They find that while duplication increases robustness and speed of adaptation, it does not result in more highly adapted final states, in contrast to Ohno's hypothesis.
Major comments:
This is an excellent study with a very elegant experimental setup that allows a precise examination of the role of duplication in …
Reviewer #1 (Public Review):
Overview:
The authors construct a pair of E. coli populations that differ by a single gene duplication in a selectable fluorescent protein. They then evolve the two populations under differing selective regimes to assess whether the end result of the selective process is a "better" phenotype when starting with duplicated copies. Importantly, their starting duplicated population is structured to avoid the duplication-amplification process often seen in bacterial artificial evolution experiments. They find that while duplication increases robustness and speed of adaptation, it does not result in more highly adapted final states, in contrast to Ohno's hypothesis.
Major comments:
This is an excellent study with a very elegant experimental setup that allows a precise examination of the role of duplication in functional evolution, exclusive of other potential mechanisms. My main concern is to clarify some of the arguments relating to Ohno's hypothesis.
I think my main confusion on first reading the manuscript was in the precise definition of Ohno's hypothesis. I think this confusion was mine and not the authors, but it is likely common and could be addressed.
Most evolutionary biologists think of gene duplication as making neofunctionalization "easier" by providing functional redundancy and a larger mutational target, such that the evolutionary process of neofunctionalization is faster (as the authors observed). In this framework, the final evolved state might not differ when selection is applied to duplicated copies or a single-copy gene. Ohno's hypothesis, by contrast, argues that there generally exist adaptive conflicts between the ancestral function and the "desired" novel function, such that strong selection on a single-copy gene cannot produce the evolutionary optima that selection on two copies would. This idea is hinted at in the quotation from Ohno in paragraph 2 of the introduction. However, the sentences that follow I don't think reinforce this concept well enough and lead to some confusion.
With that definition in mind, I agree with the authors' conclusion that these data do not support Ohno's hypothesis. My quibble would be that what is actually shown here is that adaptive conflict in function is not universal: there are cases where a single gene can be optimized for multiple functions just as well as duplicated copies. I do not think the authors have, however, refuted the possibility that such adaptive conflicts are nonetheless a significant barrier to evolutionary innovation in the absence of gene duplication generally. Perhaps just a sentence or two to this effect might be appropriate.
I also think the authors need to clarify their approach to normalizing fluorescence between the two populations to control for the higher relative protein expression of the population with a duplicated gene. Since each population was independently selected with the highest fluorescing 60% (or less) of the cells selected, I think this normalization is appropriate. Of course, if the two populations were to compete against each other, this dosage advantage of the duplicates would itself be a selective benefit. Even as it is, the dosage advantage should be a source of purifying selection on the duplication, and perhaps this should be noted.
Finally, I am slightly curious about the nature of the adaptations that are evolving. The authors primarily discuss a few amino-acid changing mutations that seem to fix early in the experiment. Looking at Figure 3, it however, appears that the populations are still evolving late in the experiment, and so presumably other changes are occurring later on. Do the authors believe that perhaps expression changes to increase protein levels are driving these later changes?
-
Reviewer #2 (Public Review):
Summary:
Drawing from tools of synthetic biology, Mihajlovic et al. use a cleverly designed experimental system to dissect Ohno's hypothesis, which describes the evolution of functional novelty on the gene-level through the process of duplication & divergence.
Ohno's original idea posits that the redundancy gained from having two copies of the same gene allows one of them to freely evolve a new function. To directly test this, the authors make use of a fluorescent protein with two emission maxima, which allows them to apply different selection regimes (e.g. selection for green AND blue, or, for green NOT blue). To achieve this feat without being distracted by more complex evolutionary dynamics caused by the frequent recombination between duplicates, the authors employ a well-controlled synthetic system to …
Reviewer #2 (Public Review):
Summary:
Drawing from tools of synthetic biology, Mihajlovic et al. use a cleverly designed experimental system to dissect Ohno's hypothesis, which describes the evolution of functional novelty on the gene-level through the process of duplication & divergence.
Ohno's original idea posits that the redundancy gained from having two copies of the same gene allows one of them to freely evolve a new function. To directly test this, the authors make use of a fluorescent protein with two emission maxima, which allows them to apply different selection regimes (e.g. selection for green AND blue, or, for green NOT blue). To achieve this feat without being distracted by more complex evolutionary dynamics caused by the frequent recombination between duplicates, the authors employ a well-controlled synthetic system to prevent recombination: Duplicates are placed on a plasmid as indirect repeats in a recombination-deficient strain of E.coli. The authors implement their directed evolution approach through in vitro mutagenesis and selection using fluorescent-activated cell sorting. Their in-depth analysis of evolved mutants in single-copy versus double-copy genotypes provides clear evidence for Ohno's postulate that redundant copies experience relaxed purifying selection. In contrast to Ohno's original postulate, however, the authors go on to show that this does not in fact lead to more rapid phenotypic evolution, but rather, the rapid inactivation of one of the copies.
Strengths:
This paper contributes with great experimental detail to an area where the literature predominantly leans on genomics data. Through the use of a carefully designed, well-controlled synthetic system the authors are able to directly determine the phenotype & genotype of all individuals in their evolving populations and compare differences between genotypes with a single or double copy of coGFP. With it they find clear evidence for what critics of Ohno's original model have termed "Ohno's dilemma", the rapid non-functionalization by predominantly deleterious mutations.
Including an expressed but non-functional coGFP in (phenotypically) single copy genotypes provides an especially thoughtful control that allows determining a baseline dN/dS ratio in the absence of selection. All in all the study is an exciting example of how the clever use of synthetic biology can lead to new insights.
Weaknesses:
The major weakness of the study is tied to its biggest strength (as often in experimental biology there is a trade-off between 'resolution' and 'realism').
The paper ignores an important component of the evolutionary process in favour of an in-depth characterization of how two vs one copy evolve. Specifically, by employing a recombination-deficient strain and constructing their duplicates as inverted repeats their experimental design completely abolishes recombination between the two copies.
This is problematic for two reasons:
i) In nature, new duplicates do not arise as inverted, but rather as direct (tandem) repeats and - as the authors correctly point out - these are very unstable, due to the fact that repeated DNA is prone to recA-dependent homologous recombination (which arise orders of magnitude more frequently than point mutations).
ii) This instability often leads to further amplification of the duplicates under dosage selection both in the lab and in the wild (e.g. Andersson & Hughes, Annu. Rev. Genet. 2009), and would presumably also be an outcome under the current experimental set-up if it was not prevented from happening?
So in sum, recombination between duplicate genes is not merely a nuisance in experiments, but occurring at extremely high frequencies in nature (such that the authors needed to devise a clever engineering solution to abolish it), and is often observed in evolving populations, be it in the laboratory or the wild.
The manuscript sells controlling of copy number as a strength. And clearly, without it, the same insights could not be gained. However, if the basis for the very process of what Ohno's model describes is prevented from happening for the process to be studied, then, for reasons of clarity and context this needs pointing out, especially, to readers less familiar with the principles of molecular evolution.
Connected to this, there are several places in the introduction and the discussion where I feel that the existing literature, in particular models put forward since Ohno that invoke dosage selection (such as IAD) end up being slightly misrepresented.
My point is best exemplified in line 1 of Discussion: "To test Ohno's hypothesis and to distinguish its predictions from those of competing hypotheses, it is necessary to maintain a constant and stable copy number of duplicated genes during experimental evolution."
I think this statement is simply not true and might be misleading. To take the exaggerated position of a devil's advocate, the goal of evolutionary biology should be to find out how evolution actually proceeds in nature most of the time, rather than creating laboratory systems that manage to recapitulate influential ideas.
While fixing copy number may be a necessary step to understand how one copy evolves if a second one is present, it seems that if Ohno's hypothesis only works out in recA-deficient bacterial strains and on engineered inverted repeats, that Ohno might have missed one crucial aspect of how paralogs evolve. The mentioned competing hypotheses have been put forward to (a) address Ohno's dilemma (which the present study beautifully demonstrates exists under their experimental conditions) and (b) to reflect a commonly observed evolutionary process in bacteria (dosage gain in response to selection, e.g. a classic way of gaining antibiotic resistance). Fixing the copy number allowed the authors to show which predictions of Ohno's model hold up and which don't (under these specific conditions). But they do so without even preventing the processes described by alternative models from happening, so the experimental system is hardly appropriate to distinguish between Ohno & alternatives. Therefore, I think it could be made clearer that the experimental system is great to look at certain aspects Ohno's hypothesis in detail, but it can only inform us about a universe without recombination.
(1) Citing the works by ref 8, 26, 27 to merely state that "in some copies were gained and some were lost (ref 6, ref 25)" makes it seem as if fixing at 2 copies is some sort of sensible average. Yet ref 6 (Dhar et al.) specifically states that dosage is the most important response. Moreover, in this study gene copies are lost, but plasmid copies are gained instead. In Holloway et al. 2007 (ref 25), the 2 copies resided on different plasmids, so entirely different underlying molecular genetics might be at work (high cost of plasmid maintenance, and competitive binding on both proteins onto the respective (off)-target, where either way selection favored a single copy, so a different situation altogether). In both cited studies, fixing the copy would have prohibited learning something about the process of duplication & divergence.
Hence this statement seems to distract the readers from the main message, which seems that preventing recombination experimentally allows to follow the divergence of each copy and studying a response that does not involve dosage-increase.
(2) "These studies highlighted the importance of gene duplication in providing fast adaptation under changing environmental conditions but they focused on the importance of gene dosage." I think this constructs a false dichotomy. Instead, these studies pointed out that dosage (and with it, selection for dosage) is an important part of the equation that might have been missed by Ohno.
(3) "Such models are also easier to test experimentally, because they do not require precise control of gene copy number. The necessary tests can even benefit from massive gene amplifications8. Although Ohno's hypothesis is more difficult to test experimentally (...)" - again, I feel the wording is slightly misleading. The point is not that IAD is easier to test and Ohno's model is harder to test in laboratory experiments, rather, experiments (and some more limited observations of naturally evolving populations) seem to suggest that in reality evolution proceeds (more often?) according to IAD rather than Ohno's neofunctionalization hypothesis. However, as the authors point out, it will be exciting to see their clever experimental system used to test other genes and conditions to get a more comprehensive understanding of what gene- and selection- parameter values would overcome Ohno's dilemma.
-
-
Excerpt
An experimental system to test hypotheses on the evolution of gene duplication. Was S. Ohno right?
-