Table 4.
Comparison of Pareto fits to the distribution of small effects on fitness for three different fitness landscapes
| Pareto[k, a] | % of mutations | |
|---|---|---|
| B | k = 0.0197 ± 0.0003 | 89.9 |
| S | a = 0.993 ± 0.020 | R2 = 0.997 |
| B | k = 0.0200 ± 0.0003 | 92.2 |
| S + Q | a = 0.976 ± 0.017 | R2 = 0.998 |
| B | k = 0.0198 ± 0.0004 | 94.2 |
| S + E | a = 1.170 ± 0.034 | R2 = 0.995 |
| D | k = 0.0190 ± 0.0010 | 63.5 |
| S | a = 0.391 ± 0.016 | R2 = 0.984 |
| D | k = 0.0219 ± 0.0016 | 75.2 |
| S + Q | a = 0.529 ± 0.034 | R2 = 0.963 |
| D | k = 0.0197 ± 0.0014 | 81.0 |
| S + E | a = 0.596 ± 0.036 | R2 = 0.965 |
The Pareto probability distribution function fits the numerically obtained distributions of small effects well when selection of a specific 10 nt sequence or selection of low-energy folds occurs simultaneously to selection of a target secondary structure. Results shown as in Table 3. S indicates selection solely on structure (according to the definition given in Eq. (1)); S + Q stands for populations with selection on structure and sequence (definition given in Eq. (8)); S + E represents populations with selection on structure and energy (following Eq. (9)). Distributions are measured for populations optimized at a value of the mutation rate μ = 0.003.