Adaptive substitutions underlying cardiac glycoside insensitivity in insects exhibit epistasis in vivo

  1. Andrew M Taverner
  2. Lu Yang
  3. Zachary J Barile
  4. Becky Lin
  5. Julie Peng  Is a corresponding author
  6. Ana P Pinharanda
  7. Arya S Rao
  8. Bartholomew P Roland
  9. Aaron D Talsma
  10. Daniel Wei
  11. Georg Petschenka
  12. MIchael J Palladino  Is a corresponding author
  13. Peter Andolfatto  Is a corresponding author
  1. Princeton University, United States
  2. University of Pittsburgh, United States
  3. Columbia University, United States
  4. Justus-Liebig-Universität Gießen, Germany

Abstract

Predicting how species will respond to selection pressures requires understanding the factors that constrain their evolution. We use genome engineering of Drosophila to investigate constraints on the repeated evolution of unrelated herbivorous insects to toxic cardiac glycosides, which primarily occurs via a small subset of possible functionally-relevant substitutions to Na+,K+-ATPase. Surprisingly, we find that frequently observed adaptive substitutions at two sites, 111 and 122, are lethal when homozygous and adult heterozygotes exhibit dominant neural dysfunction. We identify a phylogenetically correlated substitution, A119S, that partially ameliorates the deleterious effects of substitutions at 111 and 122. Despite contributing little to cardiac glycoside-insensitivity in vitro, A119S, like substitutions at 111 and 122, substantially increases adult survivorship upon cardiac glycoside exposure. Our results demonstrate the importance of epistasis in constraining adaptive paths. Moreover, by revealing distinct effects of substitutions in vitro and in vivo, our results underscore the importance of evaluating the fitness of adaptive substitutions and their interactions in whole organisms.

Data availability

Sequence data as been deposited in Genbank and the details of all accession numbers of this and previously published data are tabulated in Supplementary Table S1.

The following data sets were generated

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Andrew M Taverner

    Lewis-Sigler Institute for Integrative Genomics, Princeton University, Princeton, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-8265-6836
  2. Lu Yang

    Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Princeton University, Princeton, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Zachary J Barile

    Department of Pharmacology and Chemical Biology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Becky Lin

    Department of Pharmacology and Chemical Biology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Julie Peng

    Lewis-Sigler Institute for Integrative Genomics, Princeton University, Princeton, United States
    For correspondence
    jzpeng@Princeton.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Ana P Pinharanda

    Department of Biological Sciences, Columbia University, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Arya S Rao

    Department of Biological Sciences, Columbia University, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-3007-4812
  8. Bartholomew P Roland

    Department of Pharmacology and Chemical Biology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Aaron D Talsma

    Department of Pharmacology and Chemical Biology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Daniel Wei

    Department of Pharmacology and Chemical Biology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Georg Petschenka

    Institute for Insect Biotechnology, Justus-Liebig-Universität Gießen, Hesse, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. MIchael J Palladino

    Department of Pharmacology and Chemical Biology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsbugh, United States
    For correspondence
    mjp44@pitt.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Peter Andolfatto

    Department of Biological Sciences, Columbia University, New York, United States
    For correspondence
    pa2543@columbia.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-3393-4574

Funding

National Institutes of Health (R01 GM115523)

  • Peter Andolfatto

National Institutes of Health (T32 GM008424)

  • Bartholomew P Roland

National Institutes of Health (R01 GM108073)

  • MIchael J Palladino

National Institutes of Health (R01 AG027453)

  • MIchael J Palladino

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Copyright

© 2019, Taverner et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 4,026
    views
  • 407
    downloads
  • 32
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Andrew M Taverner
  2. Lu Yang
  3. Zachary J Barile
  4. Becky Lin
  5. Julie Peng
  6. Ana P Pinharanda
  7. Arya S Rao
  8. Bartholomew P Roland
  9. Aaron D Talsma
  10. Daniel Wei
  11. Georg Petschenka
  12. MIchael J Palladino
  13. Peter Andolfatto
(2019)
Adaptive substitutions underlying cardiac glycoside insensitivity in insects exhibit epistasis in vivo
eLife 8:e48224.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.48224

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.48224

Further reading

    1. Ecology
    2. Evolutionary Biology
    Rebecca D Tarvin, Jeffrey L Coleman ... Richard W Fitch
    Research Article

    Understanding the origins of novel, complex phenotypes is a major goal in evolutionary biology. Poison frogs of the family Dendrobatidae have evolved the novel ability to acquire alkaloids from their diet for chemical defense at least three times. However, taxon sampling for alkaloids has been biased towards colorful species, without similar attention paid to inconspicuous ones that are often assumed to be undefended. As a result, our understanding of how chemical defense evolved in this group is incomplete. Here, we provide new data showing that, in contrast to previous studies, species from each undefended poison frog clade have measurable yet low amounts of alkaloids. We confirm that undefended dendrobatids regularly consume mites and ants, which are known sources of alkaloids. Thus, our data suggest that diet is insufficient to explain the defended phenotype. Our data support the existence of a phenotypic intermediate between toxin consumption and sequestration — passive accumulation — that differs from sequestration in that it involves no derived forms of transport and storage mechanisms yet results in low levels of toxin accumulation. We discuss the concept of passive accumulation and its potential role in the origin of chemical defenses in poison frogs and other toxin-sequestering organisms. In light of ideas from pharmacokinetics, we incorporate new and old data from poison frogs into an evolutionary model that could help explain the origins of acquired chemical defenses in animals and provide insight into the molecular processes that govern the fate of ingested toxins.

    1. Computational and Systems Biology
    2. Evolutionary Biology
    Pierre Barrat-Charlaix, Richard A Neher
    Research Article

    As pathogens spread in a population of hosts, immunity is built up, and the pool of susceptible individuals are depleted. This generates selective pressure, to which many human RNA viruses, such as influenza virus or SARS-CoV-2, respond with rapid antigenic evolution and frequent emergence of immune evasive variants. However, the host’s immune systems adapt, and older immune responses wane, such that escape variants only enjoy a growth advantage for a limited time. If variant growth dynamics and reshaping of host-immunity operate on comparable time scales, viral adaptation is determined by eco-evolutionary interactions that are not captured by models of rapid evolution in a fixed environment. Here, we use a Susceptible/Infected model to describe the interaction between an evolving viral population in a dynamic but immunologically diverse host population. We show that depending on strain cross-immunity, heterogeneity of the host population, and durability of immune responses, escape variants initially grow exponentially, but lose their growth advantage before reaching high frequencies. Their subsequent dynamics follows an anomalous random walk determined by future escape variants and results in variant trajectories that are unpredictable. This model can explain the apparent contradiction between the clearly adaptive nature of antigenic evolution and the quasi-neutral dynamics of high-frequency variants observed for influenza viruses.