| Literature DB >> 32123112 |
Nathan G Walworth1, Emily J Zakem1, John P Dunne2, Sinéad Collins3, Naomi M Levine4.
Abstract
Marine microbes form the base of ocean food webs and drive ocean biogeochemical cycling. Yet little is known about the ability of microbial populations to adapt as they are advected through changing conditions. Here, we investigated the interplay between physical and biological timescales using a model of adaptation and an eddy-resolving ocean circulation climate model. Two criteria were identified that relate the timing and nature of adaptation to the ratio of physical to biological timescales. Genetic adaptation was impeded in highly variable regimes by nongenetic modifications but was promoted in more stable environments. An evolutionary trade-off emerged where greater short-term nongenetic transgenerational effects (low-γ strategy) enabled rapid responses to environmental fluctuations but delayed genetic adaptation, while fewer short-term transgenerational effects (high-γ strategy) allowed faster genetic adaptation but inhibited short-term responses. Our results demonstrate that the selective pressures for organisms within a single water mass vary based on differences in generation timescales resulting in different evolutionary strategies being favored. Organisms that experience more variable environments should favor a low-γ strategy. Furthermore, faster cell division rates should be a key factor in genetic adaptation in a changing ocean. Understanding and quantifying the relationship between evolutionary and physical timescales is critical for robust predictions of future microbial dynamics.Entities:
Keywords: adaptation timescales; advection; evolution; fluctuating environment; marine microbes
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32123112 PMCID: PMC7084144 DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1919332117
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A ISSN: 0027-8424 Impact factor: 11.205
Fig. 1.Illustrative example of model dynamics for a high-γ (A) and low-γ (B) simulation. Fitness changes (black line) are primarily driven by HT modifications (purple line) in the high-γ simulation and by both HT and LT (blue line) modifications in the low-γ simulation. The time-to-sweep (τsweep) is longer for the low-γ simulation (B) than the high-γ simulation (A). White shading denotes the “new” environment while gray shading denotes the “ancestral” environment.
Fig. 2.Timescales and outcomes of adaptation are determined by the values ε and γ. A illustrates the ε criteria by showing the impact of environmental fluctuations (τf) on τsweep normalized to τHT. Boxplots show the distribution of τsweep/τHT across all replicates with the median value indicated by the red central line. Outlier values are denoted with a red + sign and represent replicates with timescales more than 1.5 times the interquartile range (25th to 75th percentile). The dashed line indicates ε = 1. B illustrates the trade-off associated with a low-γ strategy by showing the relationship between the rate of fitness increase in a “new” environment (colorbar) with τsweep normalized to τHT. In B, τf is represented by the size of the symbol. The dashed line indicates γ = 1.
Fig. 3.Differences in selective pressure for popA (A and B) versus popB (C and D). A and C show trajectories predicted to have ε > 1 and so experience a HT selective sweep. Here, we assume that τHT < 50 generations and so ε > 1 for trajectories with mean τf > 50 (red trajectories). This is a conservative estimate since the average model τHT = 15 ± 7 with max τHT = 60. Trajectories with the potential for a HT sweep (mean τf <50 but the maximum τf > 50) are shown in yellow, and trajectories where a sweep is unlikely (maximum τf < 50) are shown in gray. B and D show the estimated timescale of τLT necessary for a low-γ strategy. Trajectories with τLT < 50 generations are shown in shades of blue, while trajectories with τLT > 50 are shown in gray. Here, we plot a subset of the trajectories (2° x 2° grid) for clarity (see for all trajectories).