Causal mutations from adaptive laboratory evolution are outlined by multiple scales of genome annotations and condition-specificity.

Adaptive laboratory evolution Multiscale genome annotation Mutation convergence Mutation functional analysis Mutation meta-analysis

Journal

BMC genomics
ISSN: 1471-2164
Titre abrégé: BMC Genomics
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100965258

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
25 Jul 2020
Historique:
received: 27 04 2020
accepted: 17 07 2020
entrez: 27 7 2020
pubmed: 28 7 2020
medline: 15 5 2021
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Adaptive Laboratory Evolution (ALE) has emerged as an experimental approach to discover mutations that confer phenotypic functions of interest. However, the task of finding and understanding all beneficial mutations of an ALE experiment remains an open challenge for the field. To provide for better results than traditional methods of ALE mutation analysis, this work applied enrichment methods to mutations described by a multiscale annotation framework and a consolidated set of ALE experiment conditions. A total of 25,321 unique genome annotations from various sources were leveraged to describe multiple scales of mutated features in a set of 35 Escherichia coli based ALE experiments. These experiments totalled 208 independent evolutions and 2641 mutations. Additionally, mutated features were statistically associated across a total of 43 unique experimental conditions to aid in deconvoluting mutation selection pressures. Identifying potentially beneficial, or key, mutations was enhanced by seeking coding and non-coding genome features significantly enriched by mutations across multiple ALE replicates and scales of genome annotations. The median proportion of ALE experiment key mutations increased from 62%, with only small coding and non-coding features, to 71% with larger aggregate features. Understanding key mutations was enhanced by considering the functions of broader annotation types and the significantly associated conditions for key mutated features. The approaches developed here were used to find and characterize novel key mutations in two ALE experiments: one previously unpublished with Escherichia coli grown on glycerol as a carbon source and one previously published with Escherichia coli tolerized to high concentrations of L-serine. The emergent adaptive strategies represented by sets of ALE mutations became more clear upon observing the aggregation of mutated features across small to large scale genome annotations. The clarification of mutation selection pressures among the many experimental conditions also helped bring these strategies to light. This work demonstrates how multiscale genome annotation frameworks and data-driven methods can help better characterize ALE mutations, and thus help elucidate the genotype-to-phenotype relationship of the studied organism.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Adaptive Laboratory Evolution (ALE) has emerged as an experimental approach to discover mutations that confer phenotypic functions of interest. However, the task of finding and understanding all beneficial mutations of an ALE experiment remains an open challenge for the field. To provide for better results than traditional methods of ALE mutation analysis, this work applied enrichment methods to mutations described by a multiscale annotation framework and a consolidated set of ALE experiment conditions. A total of 25,321 unique genome annotations from various sources were leveraged to describe multiple scales of mutated features in a set of 35 Escherichia coli based ALE experiments. These experiments totalled 208 independent evolutions and 2641 mutations. Additionally, mutated features were statistically associated across a total of 43 unique experimental conditions to aid in deconvoluting mutation selection pressures.
RESULTS RESULTS
Identifying potentially beneficial, or key, mutations was enhanced by seeking coding and non-coding genome features significantly enriched by mutations across multiple ALE replicates and scales of genome annotations. The median proportion of ALE experiment key mutations increased from 62%, with only small coding and non-coding features, to 71% with larger aggregate features. Understanding key mutations was enhanced by considering the functions of broader annotation types and the significantly associated conditions for key mutated features. The approaches developed here were used to find and characterize novel key mutations in two ALE experiments: one previously unpublished with Escherichia coli grown on glycerol as a carbon source and one previously published with Escherichia coli tolerized to high concentrations of L-serine.
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
The emergent adaptive strategies represented by sets of ALE mutations became more clear upon observing the aggregation of mutated features across small to large scale genome annotations. The clarification of mutation selection pressures among the many experimental conditions also helped bring these strategies to light. This work demonstrates how multiscale genome annotation frameworks and data-driven methods can help better characterize ALE mutations, and thus help elucidate the genotype-to-phenotype relationship of the studied organism.

Identifiants

pubmed: 32711472
doi: 10.1186/s12864-020-06920-4
pii: 10.1186/s12864-020-06920-4
pmc: PMC7382830
doi:

Substances chimiques

Escherichia coli Proteins 0

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

514

Subventions

Organisme : NIAID NIH HHS
ID : U01 AI124316
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCATS NIH HHS
ID : UL1 TR001863
Pays : United States
Organisme : National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases
ID : U01AI124316
Organisme : Novo Nordisk Fonden
ID : NNF10CC1016517

Références

Nature. 2016 Aug 11;536(7615):165-70
pubmed: 27479321
Metab Eng. 2017 Jan;39:141-150
pubmed: 27908688
Nat Genet. 2006 Dec;38(12):1406-12
pubmed: 17086184
PLoS Genet. 2013;9(1):e1003232
pubmed: 23358723
Nucleic Acids Res. 2000 Jan 1;28(1):235-42
pubmed: 10592235
Nat Genet. 2000 May;25(1):25-9
pubmed: 10802651
Appl Environ Microbiol. 2017 Mar 31;83(8):
pubmed: 28159796
Genome Biol. 2009;10(10):R118
pubmed: 19849850
Front Biosci (Landmark Ed). 2017 Mar 1;22:1458-1468
pubmed: 28199212
Nucleic Acids Res. 2019 Jan 8;47(D1):D1164-D1171
pubmed: 30357390
J Biol Chem. 1992 Mar 25;267(9):6114-21
pubmed: 1556120
J Bacteriol. 2002 Jun;184(11):3044-52
pubmed: 12003946
Nucleic Acids Res. 2017 Jan 4;45(D1):D535-D542
pubmed: 27899627
Genomics. 2014 Dec;104(6 Pt A):399-405
pubmed: 25281774
Metab Eng. 2019 Dec;56:1-16
pubmed: 31401242
Mol Biol Evol. 2014 Oct;31(10):2647-62
pubmed: 25015645
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2018 Jan 2;115(1):222-227
pubmed: 29255023
Metab Eng. 2018 Jul;48:82-93
pubmed: 29842925
J Mol Biol. 1983 Mar 25;165(1):197-202
pubmed: 6302283
Nat Rev Microbiol. 2008 Aug;6(8):613-24
pubmed: 18628769
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012 Oct 9;109(41):E2774-83
pubmed: 22991466
Appl Environ Microbiol. 2015 Jan;81(1):17-30
pubmed: 25304508
Science. 1966 Aug 12;153(3737):755-7
pubmed: 5328677
Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 2018 Jul 25;82(3):
pubmed: 30045954
Microbiology (Reading). 1995 Jan;141 ( Pt 1):133-40
pubmed: 7894704
J Bacteriol. 2012 Jan;194(2):303-6
pubmed: 22081388
Mol Syst Biol. 2019 Apr 8;15(4):e8462
pubmed: 30962359
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2002 Dec 10;99(25):16144-9
pubmed: 12446845
J Biol Chem. 2011 Jul 1;286(26):23150-9
pubmed: 21550976
Nucleic Acids Res. 2017 Jan 4;45(D1):D158-D169
pubmed: 27899622
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012 Dec 18;109(51):21010-5
pubmed: 23197825
BMC Bioinformatics. 2017 Mar 14;18(Suppl 3):80
pubmed: 28361673
Nucleic Acids Res. 2019 Jan 8;47(D1):D212-D220
pubmed: 30395280
Mol Syst Biol. 2018 Dec 20;14(12):e8430
pubmed: 30573687
FEMS Microbiol Lett. 2005 Jan 15;242(2):333-8
pubmed: 15621456
BMC Genomics. 2010 Feb 03;11:88
pubmed: 20128923
Nucleic Acids Res. 2009 Jan;37(1):1-13
pubmed: 19033363
J Bacteriol. 1985 May;162(2):810-6
pubmed: 2985549
Curr Opin Microbiol. 2008 Apr;11(2):87-93
pubmed: 18359269
Environ Microbiol. 1999 Feb;1(1):45-52
pubmed: 11207717
Microbiology (Reading). 2002 Jul;148(Pt 7):2203-2214
pubmed: 12101307
Nucleic Acids Res. 2016 Jan 4;44(D1):D133-43
pubmed: 26527724
Science. 2012 Jan 27;335(6067):457-61
pubmed: 22282810
Nucleic Acids Res. 2000 Jan 1;28(1):33-6
pubmed: 10592175
Appl Environ Microbiol. 2018 Sep 17;84(19):
pubmed: 30054360
Nucleic Acids Res. 2017 Jan 4;45(D1):D543-D550
pubmed: 27899573
Appl Environ Microbiol. 2017 Jun 16;83(13):
pubmed: 28455337
Cold Spring Harb Symp Quant Biol. 2009;74:119-29
pubmed: 19776167
Cell Syst. 2015 Sep 23;1(3):197-209
pubmed: 27135912
Mol Biol Evol. 2020 Mar 1;37(3):660-667
pubmed: 31651953
Front Microbiol. 2018 Aug 07;9:1793
pubmed: 30131786
Nucleic Acids Res. 2019 Jan 8;47(D1):D330-D338
pubmed: 30395331
PLoS One. 2016 Mar 10;11(3):e0151130
pubmed: 26964043
PLoS Genet. 2010 Nov 04;6(11):e1001186
pubmed: 21079674
Microbiology (Reading). 2009 Jan;155(Pt 1):106-114
pubmed: 19118351
Microbiology (Reading). 2001 Aug;147(Pt 8):2215-2221
pubmed: 11495998
Metab Eng. 2018 Jul;48:233-242
pubmed: 29906504
Methods Mol Biol. 2014;1151:165-88
pubmed: 24838886

Auteurs

Patrick V Phaneuf (PV)

Bioinformatics and Systems Biology Program, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, 92093, USA.

James T Yurkovich (JT)

Institute for Systems Biology, Seattle, WA, 98109, USA.

David Heckmann (D)

Department of Bioengineering, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, 92093, USA.

Muyao Wu (M)

Department of Bioengineering, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, 92093, USA.

Troy E Sandberg (TE)

Department of Bioengineering, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, 92093, USA.

Zachary A King (ZA)

Department of Bioengineering, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, 92093, USA.

Justin Tan (J)

Department of Bioengineering, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, 92093, USA.

Bernhard O Palsson (BO)

Bioinformatics and Systems Biology Program, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, 92093, USA.
Department of Bioengineering, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, 92093, USA.
Department of Pediatrics, University of California, San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive, La Jolla, CA, 92093, USA.
Novo Nordisk Foundation Center for Biosustainability, Technical University of Denmark, Building 220, Kemitorvet, 2800, Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark.

Adam M Feist (AM)

Department of Bioengineering, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, 92093, USA. afeist@ucsd.edu.
Novo Nordisk Foundation Center for Biosustainability, Technical University of Denmark, Building 220, Kemitorvet, 2800, Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark. afeist@ucsd.edu.

Articles similaires

T-Lymphocytes, Regulatory Lung Neoplasms Proto-Oncogene Proteins p21(ras) Animals Humans

Pathogenic mitochondrial DNA mutations inhibit melanoma metastasis.

Spencer D Shelton, Sara House, Luiza Martins Nascentes Melo et al.
1.00
DNA, Mitochondrial Humans Melanoma Mutation Neoplasm Metastasis

Prevalence and implications of fragile X premutation screening in Thailand.

Areerat Hnoonual, Sunita Kaewfai, Chanin Limwongse et al.
1.00
Humans Fragile X Mental Retardation Protein Thailand Male Female
Humans Receptors, Antigen, T-Cell Proto-Oncogene Proteins p21(ras) Pancreatic Neoplasms T-Lymphocytes

Classifications MeSH