| Literature DB >> 27716796 |
Miriam Kaltenbach1, Stephane Emond2, Florian Hollfelder2, Nobuhiko Tokuriki1.
Abstract
The extent to which an emerging new function trades off with the original function is a key characteristic of the dynamics of enzyme evolution. Various cases of laboratory evolution have unveiled a characteristic trend; a large increase in a new, promiscuous activity is often accompanied by only a mild reduction of the native, original activity. A model that associates weak trade-offs with "evolvability" was put forward, which proposed that enzymes possess mutational robustness in the native activity and plasticity in promiscuous activities. This would enable the acquisition of a new function without compromising the original one, reducing the benefit of early gene duplication and therefore the selection pressure thereon. Yet, to date, no experimental study has examined this hypothesis directly. Here, we investigate the causes of weak trade-offs by systematically characterizing adaptive mutations that occurred in two cases of evolutionary transitions in enzyme function: (1) from phosphotriesterase to arylesterase, and (2) from atrazine chlorohydrolase to melamine deaminase. Mutational analyses in various genetic backgrounds revealed that, in contrast to the prevailing model, the native activity is less robust to mutations than the promiscuous activity. For example, in phosphotriesterase, the deleterious effect of individual mutations on the native phosphotriesterase activity is much larger than their positive effect on the promiscuous arylesterase activity. Our observations suggest a revision of the established model: weak trade-offs are not caused by an intrinsic robustness of the native activity and plasticity of the promiscuous activity. We propose that upon strong adaptive pressure for the new activity without selection against the original one, selected mutations will lead to the largest possible increases in the new function, but whether and to what extent they decrease the old function is irrelevant, creating a bias towards initially weak trade-offs and the emergence of generalist enzymes.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27716796 PMCID: PMC5065130 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1006305
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS Genet ISSN: 1553-7390 Impact factor: 5.917
Fig 1Functional trade-offs in protein evolution.
Strong trade-offs result when mutations increasing the new function have a large effect on the original function. When the effect on the original function is mild, trade-offs are weak. Weak trade-offs channel evolution through a generalist regime where the enzyme catalyzes both reactions with high efficiency.
Fig 3Effect of all single point mutations obtained over the evolution.
(A)-(C) Effect of mutations on PTE activity (A) in the wtPTE background, (B) upon their occurence in the evolution, and (C) in the AE background. *Phosphotriesterase activity was too low to be determined in AE-R254h, but at least 10-fold reduced compared to AE. (D)-(F) Effect of mutations on AE activity (D) in the wtPTE background, (E) upon their occurrence in the evolution, and (F) in the AE background. **Arylesterase activity was reduced to 1.9×10−5 times the level of AE and is therefore not shown to scale. Activities are given relative to the respective parent background. Mutations causing a >1.3-fold change compared to the parent mutant (dotted line) are considered non-neutral. A student T-test was performed and p-values compared to each parent were calculated (). The 1.3-fold effect of T341i on AE activity in the AE background as well as the effect of t199I, l140M and t45A on PTE activity in the evolution is statistically not significant. Note that in the evolution, f306 was first mutated to L and then to I and therefore, the direct effect of f306I could not be determined. Amino acids found in wtPTE are shown in lower-case italics.
Fig 6Evolution from AtzA to TriA (adapted from reference [34]).
(A) AtzA catalyzes the dechlorination of atrazine (AtzA activity). TriA catalyzes the deamination of melamine (TriA activity). TriA catalyzed the dechlorination reaction promiscuously. Deamination by AtzA could not be detected. (B) A possible uphill evolutionary trajectory from AtzA to TriA determined by Noor et al. In each round of evolution, a single point mutation was added in the order shown in (C)—(F) (see also ). (C)—(F) Effect of all single point mutations separating AtzA and TriA (). (C) Effect of mutations in the AtzA background on AtzA activity and (D) TriA activity. (E) Effect of mutations in the TriA background on TriA activity and (F) AtzA activity. Activities are expressed as k/K values. Relative activities could not be calculated because several variants do not have detectable activity. Amino acids found in AtzA are shown in lower-case italics.
Distribution of mutational effects in the evolution of PTE and AtzA.
| 15 | 8 | 10 | 2 | 3 | 8 | |
| 11 | 14 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 18 | |
| 0 | 4 | 5 | 13 | 13 | 0 | |
| 0.46 (0.31;0.70) | 0.98 (0.73;1.31) | 0.71 (0.52;1.01) | 1.57 (1.07;2,30) | 1.47 (1.05;2.06) | 0.43 (0.18;1.02) | |
| 0.71 | 0.91 | 0.84 | 1.27 | 1.31 | 0.85 | |
| 1.8×10−9 | 5.8×10−1 | 3.2×10−4 | 7.3×104 | 2.4×104 | 3.7×10−10 | |
| / | / | (1.0±0.01)×10−5 | (1.7±0.6)×105 | / | / | |
| 3 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 1 | 7 | |
| 6 | 8 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 2 | |
| 0 | 1 | 0 | 5 | 4 | 0 | |
| 0.5 (0.23;1.06) | / | 0.54 (0.35;0.82) | / | / | / | |
| 1 | / | 0.7 | / | / | / | |
| 1.8×10−3 | / | 4.1×10−3 | / | / | / | |
| / | / | 2.4×10−2 | / | / | / | |
[a] Mutations are considered deleterious if they cause a >1.3-fold reduction in activity compared to the respective parent, favorable if they cause a >1.3-fold increase and otherwise neutral. A student t-test was performed to obtain p-values (S2–S4 Tables). Only mutants with an average >1.3-fold change AND a p-value <0.05 are considered significant.
Note that in the PTE evolution, f306 was first mutated to L and then to I and the direct effect of f306I could not be calculated. Therefore, the number of mutations adds up to only 25 instead of 26.
[b] Values are given relative to the respective parent variant. Several numbers could not be calculated because at least one variant showed no detectable activity.
[c] The average mutational change was calculated as the geometric mean of the relative activities of all variants (see Figs 3 and 6) and the 95% confidence interval is indicated between brackets.
[d] The expected total change was calculated according to the Null Model, which assumes that all mutational effects are additive.
[e] The observed total change was calculated by comparing the actual activity of the evolutionary end point (AE or TriA) to that of the starting point (wtPTE or AtzA, respectively).