Abstract
Metabolic control theory is used to derive conditions under which two deleterious mutations affecting the dynamics of a metabolic pathway act synergistically. It is found that two mutations tend to act mostly synergistically when they reduce the activity of the same enzyme. If the two mutations affect different enzymes, the conclusion depends on the way that fitness is determined by aspects of the pathway. The cases analyzed are: selection for (1) maximal flux, (2) maximal equilibrium concentration (pool size) of an intermediate, (3) optimal flux, (4) optimal pool size. The respective types of epistasis found are: (1) antagonistic, (2) partly synergistic, (3-4) synergism is likely to predominate over antagonism. This results in somewhat different predictions concerning the effect of metabolic mutations on fitness in prokaryotes and eukaryotes. The fact that bacteria are largely clonal but have often a mosaic gene structure is consistent with expectations from the model.
Full Text
The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (538.1 KB).
Selected References
These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
- Clark A. G. Mutation-selection balance and metabolic control theory. Genetics. 1991 Nov;129(3):909–923. doi: 10.1093/genetics/129.3.909. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Dykhuizen D. E., Dean A. M., Hartl D. L. Metabolic flux and fitness. Genetics. 1987 Jan;115(1):25–31. doi: 10.1093/genetics/115.1.25. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Gillespie J. H. A general model to account for enzyme variation in natural populations. V. The SAS--CFF model. Theor Popul Biol. 1978 Aug;14(1):1–45. doi: 10.1016/0040-5809(78)90002-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Jensen K. F., Pedersen S. Metabolic growth rate control in Escherichia coli may be a consequence of subsaturation of the macromolecular biosynthetic apparatus with substrates and catalytic components. Microbiol Rev. 1990 Jun;54(2):89–100. doi: 10.1128/mr.54.2.89-100.1990. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Kacser H., Burns J. A. MOlecular democracy: who shares the controls? Biochem Soc Trans. 1979 Oct;7(5):1149–1160. doi: 10.1042/bst0071149. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Kacser H., Burns J. A. The control of flux. Symp Soc Exp Biol. 1973;27:65–104. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Kacser H., Burns J. A. The molecular basis of dominance. Genetics. 1981 Mar-Apr;97(3-4):639–666. doi: 10.1093/genetics/97.3-4.639. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Keightley P. D., Kacser H. Dominance, pleiotropy and metabolic structure. Genetics. 1987 Oct;117(2):319–329. doi: 10.1093/genetics/117.2.319. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Kondrashov A. S., Crow J. F. Haploidy or diploidy: which is better? Nature. 1991 May 23;351(6324):314–315. doi: 10.1038/351314a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Kondrashov A. S. Deleterious mutations and the evolution of sexual reproduction. Nature. 1988 Dec 1;336(6198):435–440. doi: 10.1038/336435a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Marr A. G. Growth rate of Escherichia coli. Microbiol Rev. 1991 Jun;55(2):316–333. doi: 10.1128/mr.55.2.316-333.1991. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Redfield R. J. Evolution of bacterial transformation: is sex with dead cells ever better than no sex at all? Genetics. 1988 May;119(1):213–221. doi: 10.1093/genetics/119.1.213. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Smith H. O., Danner D. B., Deich R. A. Genetic transformation. Annu Rev Biochem. 1981;50:41–68. doi: 10.1146/annurev.bi.50.070181.000353. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Smith J. M., Dowson C. G., Spratt B. G. Localized sex in bacteria. Nature. 1991 Jan 3;349(6304):29–31. doi: 10.1038/349029a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]