2014
DOI: 10.1016/j.tig.2014.04.003
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Evolutionary constraints in variable environments, from proteins to networks

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
29
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5
2
2

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 31 publications
(30 citation statements)
references
References 60 publications
0
29
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The fitness of an organism, however, is notably difficult to measure directly [24], especially when the selective pressure is weak or depends indirectly on an organism’s phenotype and external environment. In microorganisms, conventional measures of fitness typically rely on the instantaneous growth rate in a constant environment, but this approach fails to provide a complete measure of fitness that accounts for natural environmental fluctuations [57]. In order to optimally respond to unstable environments, cells have to optimize the fitness tradeoffs involved in the use of strategies –such as phase variation [8], phenotypic switching [9], or epigenetic inheritability [10]– which stochastically generate heterogeneity within the population at typically low rate to adapt to changing environments [1113].…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The fitness of an organism, however, is notably difficult to measure directly [24], especially when the selective pressure is weak or depends indirectly on an organism’s phenotype and external environment. In microorganisms, conventional measures of fitness typically rely on the instantaneous growth rate in a constant environment, but this approach fails to provide a complete measure of fitness that accounts for natural environmental fluctuations [57]. In order to optimally respond to unstable environments, cells have to optimize the fitness tradeoffs involved in the use of strategies –such as phase variation [8], phenotypic switching [9], or epigenetic inheritability [10]– which stochastically generate heterogeneity within the population at typically low rate to adapt to changing environments [1113].…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For instance, bacteria can tolerate highly diverse conditions by recognizing specific combinations of stressors such as pH and osmotic pressure 3 , and plants can elongate above dense canopies by responding to particular combinations of light intensity and wavelength 4 . However, it is not straightforward to establish whether a particular regulatory network is able to optimally respond to the multiplicity of signals presented by a complex environment [5][6][7][8][9] , and consequently how evolutionary constraints limit the range of tolerated environments. Constraints on the adaptation abilities of regulatory networks have been studied both experimentally, by targeted mutagenesis or knock-out of its constituent components 7,10,11 , and computationally, by varying parameters in kinetic models [12][13][14] .…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The fitness of an organism, however, is notably difficult to measure directly [2][3][4], especially when the selective pressure is weak or depends indirectly on an organism's phenotype and external environment. In microorganisms, conventional measures of fitness typically rely on the instantaneous growth rate in a constant environment, but this approach fails to provide a complete measure of fitness that accounts for natural environmental fluctuations [5][6][7]. In order to optimally adapt to changing environments, cells have to optimize the fitness trade-offs involved in the use of strategies such as phase variation [8], phenotypic switching [9], or epigenetic inheritability [10], which stochastically generate heterogeneity within the population at typically low rate in response to unstable environments [11][12][13].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%