Is evolution predictable? Quantitative genetics under complex genotype‐phenotype maps

Twenty years on from Developmental Plasticity and Evolution: middle-range theories and how to test them

In Developmental Plasticity and Evolution, Mary-Jane West-Eberhard argued that the developmental mechanisms that enable organisms to respond to their environment are fundamental causes of adaptation and diversification. Twenty years after publication of this book, this once so highly controversial claim appears to have been assimilated by a wealth of studies on 'plasticity-led' evolution. However, we suggest that the role of development in explanations for adaptive evolution remains underappreciated in this body of work. By combining concepts of evolvability from evolutionary developmental biology and quantitative genetics, we outline a framework that is more appropriate to identify developmental causes of adaptive evolution. This framework demonstrates how experimental and comparative developmental biology and physiology can be leveraged to put the role of plasticity in evolution to the test.

Developing the genotype-to-phenotype relationship in evolutionary theory: A primer of developmental features

For decades, there have been repeated calls for more integration across evolutionary and developmental biology. However, critiques in the literature and recent funding initiatives suggest this integration remains incomplete. We suggest one way forward is to consider how we elaborate the most basic concept of development, the relationship between genotype and phenotype, in traditional models of evolutionary processes. For some questions, when more complex features of development are accounted for, predictions of evolutionary processes shift. We present a primer on concepts of development to clarify confusion in the literature and fuel new questions and approaches. The basic features of development involve expanding a base model of genotype-to-phenotype to include the genome, space, and time. A layer of complexity is added by incorporating developmental systems, including signal-response systems and networks of interactions. The developmental emergence of function, which captures developmental feedbacks and phenotypic performance, offers further model elaborations that explicitly link fitness with developmental systems. Finally, developmental features such as plasticity and developmental niche construction conceptualize the link between a developing phenotype and the external environment, allowing for a fuller inclusion of ecology in evolutionary models. Incorporating aspects of developmental complexity into evolutionary models also accommodates a more pluralistic focus on the causal importance of developmental systems, individual organisms, or agents in generating evolutionary patterns. Thus, by laying out existing concepts of development, and considering how they are used across different fields, we can gain clarity in existing debates around the extended evolutionary synthesis and pursue new directions in evolutionary developmental biology. Finally, we consider how nesting developmental features in traditional models of evolution can highlight areas of evolutionary biology that need more theoretical attention.

The limitations of phenotype prediction in metabolism

Phenotype prediction is at the center of many questions in biology. Prediction is often achieved by determining statistical associations between genetic and phenotypic variation, ignoring the exact processes that cause the phenotype. Here, we present a framework based on genome-scale metabolic reconstructions to reveal the mechanisms behind the associations. We calculated a polygenic score (PGS) that identifies a set of enzymes as predictors of growth, the phenotype. This set arises from the synergy of the functional mode of metabolism in a particular setting and its evolutionary history, and is suitable to infer the phenotype across a variety of conditions. We also find that there is optimal genetic variation for predictability and demonstrate how the linear PGS can still explain phenotypes generated by the underlying nonlinear biochemistry. Therefore, the explicit model interprets the black box statistical associations of the genotype-to-phenotype map and helps to discover what limits the prediction in metabolism.

A shark-inspired general model of tooth morphogenesis unveils developmental asymmetries in phenotype transitions

Developmental complexity stemming from the dynamic interplay between genetic and biomechanic factors canalizes the ways genotypes and phenotypes can change in evolution. As a paradigmatic system, we explore how changes in developmental factors generate typical tooth shape transitions. Since tooth development has mainly been researched in mammals, we contribute to a more general understanding by studying the development of tooth diversity in sharks. To this end, we build a general, but realistic, mathematical model of odontogenesis. We show that it reproduces key shark-specific features of tooth development as well as real tooth shape variation in small-spotted catsharks Scyliorhinus canicula. We validate our model by comparison with experiments in vivo. Strikingly, we observe that developmental transitions between tooth shapes tend to be highly degenerate, even for complex phenotypes. We also discover that the sets of developmental parameters involved in tooth shape transitions tend to depend asymmetrically on the direction of that transition. Together, our findings provide a valuable base for furthering our understanding of how developmental changes can lead to both adaptive phenotypic change and trait convergence in complex, phenotypically highly diverse, structures.

Evo-devo beyond development: Generalizing evo-devo to all levels of the phenotypic evolution

A foundational idea of evo-devo is that morphological variation is not isotropic, that is, it does not occur in all directions. Instead, some directions of morphological variation are more likely than others from DNA-level variation and these largely depend on development. We argue that this evo-devo perspective should apply not only to morphology but to evolution at all phenotypic levels. At other phenotypic levels there is no development, but there are processes that can be seen, in analogy to development, as constructing the phenotype (e.g., protein folding, learning for behavior, etc.). We argue that to explain the direction of evolution two types of arguments need to be combined: generative arguments about which phenotypic variation arises in each generation and selective arguments about which of it passes to the next generation. We explain how a full consideration of the two types of arguments improves the explanatory power of evolutionary theory. Also see the video abstract here: https://youtu.be/Egbvma_uaKc.

Towards evolutionary predictions: Current promises and challenges

Evolution has traditionally been a historical and descriptive science, and predicting future evolutionary processes has long been considered impossible. However, evolutionary predictions are increasingly being developed and used in medicine, agriculture, biotechnology and conservation biology. Evolutionary predictions may be used for different purposes, such as to prepare for the future, to try and change the course of evolution or to determine how well we understand evolutionary processes. Similarly, the exact aspect of the evolved population that we want to predict may also differ. For example, we could try to predict which genotype will dominate, the fitness of the population or the extinction probability of a population. In addition, there are many uses of evolutionary predictions that may not always be recognized as such. The main goal of this review is to increase awareness of methods and data in different research fields by showing the breadth of situations in which evolutionary predictions are made. We describe how diverse evolutionary predictions share a common structure described by the predictive scope, time scale and precision. Then, by using examples ranging from SARS-CoV2 and influenza to CRISPR-based gene drives and sustainable product formation in biotechnology, we discuss the methods for predicting evolution, the factors that affect predictability and how predictions can be used to prevent evolution in undesirable directions or to promote beneficial evolution (i.e. evolutionary control). We hope that this review will stimulate collaboration between fields by establishing a common language for evolutionary predictions.

Moving beyond the adaptationist paradigm for human evolution, and why it matters

The Journal of Human Evolution (JHE) was founded 50 years ago when much of the foundation for how we think about human evolution was in place or being put in place, providing the main framework for how we consider our origins today. Here, we will explore historical developments, including early JHE outputs, as they relate to our understanding of the relationship between phenotypic variation and evolutionary process, and use that as a springboard for considering our current understanding of these links as applied to human evolution. We will focus specifically on how the study of variation itself has shifted us away from taxonomic and adaptationist perspectives toward a richer understanding of the processes shaping human evolutionary history, using literature searches and specific test cases to highlight this. We argue that natural selection, gene exchange, genetic drift, and mutation should not be considered individually when considering the production of hominin diversity. In this context, we offer suggestions for future research directions and reflect on this more complex understanding of human evolution and its broader relevance to society. Finally, we end by considering authorship demographics and practices in the last 50 years within JHE and how a shift in these demographics has the potential to reshape the science of human evolution going forward.

Modelling the evolution of novelty: a review

Evolution has been an inventive process since its inception, about 4 billion years ago. It has generated an astounding diversity of novel mechanisms and structures for adaptation to the environment, for competition and cooperation, and for organisation of the internal and external dynamics of the organism. How does this novelty come about? Evolution builds with the tools available, and on top of what it has already built - therefore, much novelty consists in repurposing old functions in a different context. In the process, the tools themselves evolve, allowing yet more novelty to arise. Despite evolutionary novelty being the most striking observable of evolution, it is not accounted for in classical evolutionary theory. Nevertheless, mathematical and computational models that illustrate mechanisms of evolutionary innovation have been developed. In the present review, we present and compare several examples of computational evo-devo models that capture two aspects of novelty: 'between-level novelty' and 'constructive novelty.' Novelty can evolve between predefined levels of organisation to dynamically transcode biological information across these levels - as occurs during development. Constructive novelty instead generates a level of biological organisation by exploiting the lower level as an informational scaffold to open a new space of possibilities - an example being the evolution of multicellularity. We propose that the field of computational evo-devo is well-poised to reveal many more exciting mechanisms for the evolution of novelty. A broader theory of evolutionary novelty may well be attainable in the near future.

Temperature-driven heterochrony as a main evolutionary response to climate changes in conodonts

Can we predict the evolutionary response of organisms to climate changes? The direction of greatest intraspecific phenotypic variance is thought to correspond to an 'evolutionary line of least resistance', i.e. a taxon's phenotype is expected to evolve along that general direction, if not constrained otherwise. In particular, heterochrony, whereby the timing or rate of developmental processes are modified, has often been invoked to describe evolutionary trajectories and it may be advantageous to organisms when rapid adaptation is critical. Yet, to date, little is known empirically as to which covariation patterns, whether static allometry, as measured in adult forms only, or ontogenetic allometry, the basis for heterochrony, may be prevalent in what circumstances. Here, we quantify the morphology of segminiplanate conodont elements during two distinct time intervals separated by more than 130 Myr: the Devonian-Carboniferous boundary and the Carnian-Norian boundary (Late Triassic). We evidence that the corresponding species share similar patterns of intraspecific static allometry. Yet, during both crises, conodont evolution was decoupled from this common evolutionary line of least resistance. Instead, it followed heterochrony-like trajectories that furthermore appear as driven by ocean temperature. This may have implications for our interpretation of conodonts' and past marine ecosystems' response to environmental perturbations.

Functional constraints channel mandible shape ontogenies in rodents

In mammals, postnatal growth plays an essential role in the acquisition of the adult shape. During this period, the mandible undergoes many changing functional constraints, leading to spatialization of bone formation and remodelling to accommodate various dietary and behavioural changes. The interactions between the bone, muscles and teeth drive this developmental plasticity, which, in turn, could lead to convergences in the developmental processes constraining the directionality of ontogenies, their evolution and thus the adult shape variation. To test the importance of the interactions between tissues in shaping the ontogenetic trajectories, we compared the mandible shape at five postnatal stages on three rodents: the house mouse, the Mongolian gerbil and the golden hamster, using geometric morphometrics. After an early shape differentiation, by both longer gestation and allometric scaling in gerbils or early divergence of postnatal ontogeny in hamsters in comparison with the mouse, the ontogenetic trajectories appear more similar around weaning. The changes in muscle load associated with new food processing and new behaviours at weaning seem to impose similar physical constraints on the mandible, driving the convergences of the ontogeny at that stage despite an early anatomical differentiation. Nonetheless, mice present a rather different timing compared with gerbils or hamsters.

Beyond genotype-phenotype maps: Toward a phenotype-centered perspective on evolution

Evolutionary biology is paying increasing attention to the mechanisms that enable phenotypic plasticity, evolvability, and extra-genetic inheritance. Yet, there is a concern that these phenomena remain insufficiently integrated within evolutionary theory. Understanding their evolutionary implications would require focusing on phenotypes and their variation, but this does not always fit well with the prevalent genetic representation of evolution that screens off developmental mechanisms. Here, we instead use development as a starting point, and represent it in a way that allows genetic, environmental and epigenetic sources of phenotypic variation to be independent. We show why this representation helps to understand the evolutionary consequences of both genetic and non-genetic phenotype determinants, and discuss how this approach can instigate future areas of empirical and theoretical research.

A method to predict the response to directional selection using a Kalman filter

Predicting evolution remains challenging. The field of quantitative genetics provides predictions for the response to directional selection through the breeder's equation, but these predictions can have errors. The sources of these errors include omission of traits under selection, inaccurate estimates of genetic variance, and nonlinearities in the relationship between genetic and phenotypic variation. Previous research showed that the expected value of these prediction errors is often not zero, so predictions are systematically biased. Here, we propose that this bias, rather than being a nuisance, can be used to improve the predictions. We use this to develop a method to predict evolution, which is built on three key innovations. First, the method predicts change as the breeder's equation plus a bias term. Second, the method combines information from the breeder's equation and from the record of past changes in the mean to predict change using a Kalman filter. Third, the parameters of the filter are fitted in each generation using a learning algorithm on the record of past changes. We compare the method to the breeder's equation in two artificial selection experiments, one using the wing of the fruit fly and another using simulations that include a complex mapping of genotypes to phenotypes. The proposed method outperforms the breeder's equation, particularly when traits under selection are omitted from the analysis, when data are noisy, and when additive genetic variance is estimated inaccurately or not estimated at all. The proposed method is easy to apply, requiring only the trait means over past generations.

Evolvability: A Quantitative-Genetics Perspective

The concept of evolvability emerged in the early 1990s and soon became fashionable as a label for different streams of research in evolutionary biology. In evolutionary quantitative genetics, evolvability is defined as the ability of a population to respond to directional selection. This differs from other fields by treating evolvability as a property of populations rather than organisms or lineages and in being focused on quantification and short-term prediction rather than on macroevolution. While the term evolvability is new to quantitative genetics, many of the associated ideas and research questions have been with the field from its inception as biometry. Recent research on evolvability is more than a relabeling of old questions, however. New operational measures of evolvability have opened possibilities for understanding adaptation to rapid environmental change, assessing genetic constraints, and linking micro- and macroevolution.

Integrating developmental plasticity into eco-evolutionary population dynamics

There are increasing calls to incorporate developmental plasticity into the framework of eco-evolutionary dynamics. The current way is via genotype-specified reaction norms in which inheritance and phenotype expression are gene-based. I propose a developmental system perspective in which phenotypes are formed during individual development in a process comprising a complex set of interactions that involve genes, biochemistry, somatic state, and the (a)biotic environment, and where the developmental system is the unit of phenotype evolution. I explain how the two perspectives differ in assumptions and predictions, which can be contrasted using cue-and-response systems of anticipatory or mitigating developmental plasticity. This can lead to new ways of eco-evolutionary thinking, and deliver important explanations of how populations respond to environmental change through evolved developmental plasticity.

Using phenotypic plasticity to understand the structure and evolution of the genotype-phenotype map

Deciphering the genotype-phenotype map necessitates relating variation at the genetic level to variation at the phenotypic level. This endeavour is inherently limited by the availability of standing genetic variation, the rate of spontaneous mutation to novo genetic variants, and possible biases associated with induced mutagenesis. An interesting alternative is to instead rely on the environment as a source of variation. Many phenotypic traits change plastically in response to the environment, and these changes are generally underlain by changes in gene expression. Relating gene expression plasticity to the phenotypic plasticity of more integrated organismal traits thus provides useful information about which genes influence the development and expression of which traits, even in the absence of genetic variation. We here appraise the prospects and limits of such an environment-for-gene substitution for investigating the genotype-phenotype map. We review models of gene regulatory networks, and discuss the different ways in which they can incorporate the environment to mechanistically model phenotypic plasticity and its evolution. We suggest that substantial progress can be made in deciphering this genotype-environment-phenotype map, by connecting theory on gene regulatory network to empirical patterns of gene co-expression, and by more explicitly relating gene expression to the expression and development of phenotypes, both theoretically and empirically.

What does modularity mean?

Modularity is now generally recognized as a fundamental feature of organisms, one that may have profound consequences for evolution. Modularity has recently become a major focus of research in organismal biology across multiple disciplines including genetics, developmental biology, functional morphology, population and evolutionary biology. While the wealth of new data, and also new theory, has provided exciting and novel insights, the concept of modularity has become increasingly ambiguous. That ambiguity is underlain by diverse intuitions about what modularity means, and the ambiguity is not merely about the meaning of the word-the metrics of modularity are measuring different properties and the methods for delimiting modules delimit them by different, sometimes conflicting criteria. The many definitions, metrics and methods can lead to substantial confusion not just about what modularity means as a word but also about what it means for evolution. Here we review various concepts, using graphical depictions of modules. We then review some of the metrics and methods for analyzing modularity at different levels. To place these in theoretical context, we briefly review theories about the origins and evolutionary consequences of modularity. Finally, we show how mismatches between concepts, metrics and methods can produce theoretical confusion, and how potentially illogical interpretations can be made sensible by a better match between definitions, metrics, and methods.

Hormonal pleiotropy structures genetic covariance

Quantitative genetic theory proposes that phenotypic evolution is shaped by G, the matrix of genetic variances and covariances among traits. In species with separate sexes, the evolution of sexual dimorphism is also shaped by B, the matrix of between‐sex genetic variances and covariances. Despite considerable focus on estimating these matrices, their underlying biological mechanisms are largely speculative. We experimentally tested the hypothesis that G and B are structured by hormonal pleiotropy, which occurs when one hormone influences multiple phenotypes. Using juvenile brown anole lizards (Anolis sagrei) bred in a paternal half‐sibling design, we elevated the steroid hormone testosterone with slow‐release implants while administering empty implants to siblings as a control. We quantified the effects of this manipulation on the genetic architecture of a suite of sexually dimorphic traits, including body size (males are larger than females) and the area, hue, saturation, and brightness of the dewlap (a colorful ornament that is larger in males than in females). Testosterone masculinized females by increasing body size and dewlap area, hue, and saturation, while reducing dewlap brightness. Control females and males differed significantly in G, but treatment of females with testosterone rendered G statistically indistinguishable from males. Whereas B was characterized by low between‐sex genetic correlations when estimated between control females and males, these same correlations increased significantly when estimated between testosterone females and either control or testosterone males. The full G matrix (including B) for testosterone females and either control or testosterone males was significantly less permissive of sexually dimorphic evolution than was G estimated between control females and males, suggesting that natural sex differences in testosterone help decouple genetic variance between the sexes. Our results confirm that hormonal pleiotropy structures genetic covariance, implying that hormones play an important yet overlooked role in mediating evolutionary responses to selection.

From genotypes to organisms: State-of-the-art and perspectives of a cornerstone in evolutionary dynamics

Understanding how genotypes map onto phenotypes, fitness, and eventually organisms is arguably the next major missing piece in a fully predictive theory of evolution. We refer to this generally as the problem of the genotype-phenotype map. Though we are still far from achieving a complete picture of these relationships, our current understanding of simpler questions, such as the structure induced in the space of genotypes by sequences mapped to molecular structures, has revealed important facts that deeply affect the dynamical description of evolutionary processes. Empirical evidence supporting the fundamental relevance of features such as phenotypic bias is mounting as well, while the synthesis of conceptual and experimental progress leads to questioning current assumptions on the nature of evolutionary dynamics-cancer progression models or synthetic biology approaches being notable examples. This work delves with a critical and constructive attitude into our current knowledge of how genotypes map onto molecular phenotypes and organismal functions, and discusses theoretical and empirical avenues to broaden and improve this comprehension. As a final goal, this community should aim at deriving an updated picture of evolutionary processes soundly relying on the structural properties of genotype spaces, as revealed by modern techniques of molecular and functional analysis.

Evolvability and evolutionary rescue

The survival prospects of threatened species or populations can sometimes be improved by adaptive change. Such evolutionary rescue is particularly relevant when the threat comes from changing environments, or when long-term population persistence requires range expansion into new habitats. Conservation biologists are therefore often interested in whether or not populations or lineages show a disposition for adaptive evolution, that is, if they are evolvable. Here, we discuss four alternative perspectives that target different causes of evolvability and outline some of the key challenges those perspectives are designed to address. Standing genetic variation provides one familiar estimate of evolvability. Yet, the mere presence of genetic variation is often insufficient to predict if a population will adapt, or how it will adapt. The reason is that adaptive change not only depends on genetic variation, but also on the extent to which this genetic variation can be realized as adaptive phenotypic variation. This requires attention to developmental systems and how plasticity influences evolutionary potential. Finally, we discuss how a better understanding of the different factors that contribute to evolvability can be exploited in conservation practice.

Ecological limits to evolutionary rescue

Environments change, for both natural and anthropogenic reasons, which can threaten species persistence. Evolutionary adaptation is a potentially powerful mechanism to allow species to persist in these changing environments. To determine the conditions under which adaptation will prevent extinction (evolutionary rescue), classic quantitative genetics models have assumed a constantly changing environment. They predict that species traits will track a moving environmental optimum with a lag that approaches a constant. If fitness is negative at this lag, the species will go extinct. There have been many elaborations of these models incorporating increased genetic realism. Here, we review and explore the consequences of four ecological complications: non-quadratic fitness functions, interacting density- and trait-dependence, species interactions and fundamental limits to adaptation. We show that non-quadratic fitness functions can result in evolutionary tipping points and existential crises, as can the interaction between density- and trait-dependent mortality. We then review the literature on how interspecific interactions affect adaptation and persistence. Finally, we suggest an alternative theoretical framework that considers bounded environmental change and fundamental limits to adaptation. A research programme that combines theory and experiments and integrates across organizational scales will be needed to predict whether adaptation will prevent species extinction in changing environments. This article is part of the theme issue 'Integrative research perspectives on marine conservation'.

Unidirectional response to bidirectional selection on body size II. Quantitative genetics

Anticipating the genetic and phenotypic changes induced by natural or artificial selection requires reliable estimates of trait evolvabilities (genetic variances and covariances). However, whether or not multivariate quantitative genetics models are able to predict precisely the evolution of traits of interest, especially fitness-related, life history traits, remains an open empirical question. Here, we assessed to what extent the response to bivariate artificial selection on both body size and maturity in the medaka Oryzias latipes, a model fish species, fits the theoretical predictions. Three lines (Large, Small, and Control lines) were differentially selected for body length at 75 days of age, conditional on maturity. As maturity and body size were phenotypically correlated, this selection procedure generated a bi-dimensional selection pattern on two life history traits. After removal of nonheritable trends and noise with a random effect ("animal") model, the observed selection response did not match the expected bidirectional response. For body size, Large and Control lines responded along selection gradients (larger body size and stasis, respectively), but, surprisingly, the Small did not evolve a smaller body length and remained identical to the Control line throughout the experiment. The magnitude of the empirical response was smaller than the theoretical prediction in both selected directions. For maturity, the response was opposite to the expectation (the Large line evolved late maturity compared to the Control line, while the Small line evolved early maturity, while the opposite pattern was predicted due to the strong positive genetic correlation between both traits). The mismatch between predicted and observed response was substantial and could not be explained by usual sources of uncertainties (including sampling effects, genetic drift, and error in G matrix estimates).