Evolution of cell size control is canalized towards adders or sizers by cell cycle structure and selective pressures

  1. Felix Proulx-Giraldeau
  2. Jan M Skotheim
  3. Paul François  Is a corresponding author
  1. McGill University, Canada
  2. Stanford University, United States

Abstract

Cell size is controlled to be within a specific range to support physiological function. To control their size, cells use diverse mechanisms ranging from ‘sizers’, in which differences in cell size are compensated for in a single cell division cycle, to ‘adders’, in which a constant amount of cell growth occurs in each cell cycle. This diversity raises the question why a particular cell would implement one rather than another mechanism? To address this question, we performed a series of simulations evolving cell size control networks. The size control mechanism that evolved was influenced by both cell cycle structure and specific selection pressures. Moreover, evolved networks recapitulated known size control properties of naturally occurring networks. If the mechanism is based on a G1 size control and an S/G2/M timer, as found for budding yeast and some human cells, adders likely evolve. But, if the G1 phase is significantly longer than the S/G2/M phase, as is often the case in mammalian cells in vivo, sizers become more likely. Sizers also evolve when the cell cycle structure is inverted so that G1 is a timer, while S/G2/M performs size control, as is the case for the fission yeast S. pombe. For some size control networks, cell size consistently decreases in each cycle until a burst of cell cycle inhibitor drives an extended G1 phase much like the cell division cycle of the green algae Chlamydomonas. That these size control networks evolved such self-organized criticality shows how the evolution of complex systems can drive the emergence of critical processes.

Data availability

This is a theory paper, so there is no experimental data, and all results were generated by the code. The code used is freely available at https://github.com/FelixPG/PhiEvo_SizeControl . Reference to the code has been added in the text.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Felix Proulx-Giraldeau

    Department of Physics, McGill University, Montreal, Canada
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Jan M Skotheim

    Department of Biology, Stanford University, Stanford, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Paul François

    Department of Physics, McGill University, Montreal, Canada
    For correspondence
    paul.francois2@mcgill.ca
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-2223-839X

Funding

Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (Discovery Grant)

  • Paul François

Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (Alexander Graham Bell Canada Graduate Scholarship)

  • Felix Proulx-Giraldeau

Fonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologies (Doctoral research scholarship)

  • Felix Proulx-Giraldeau

National Institutes of Health (NIH R35 GM134858)

  • Jan M Skotheim

Chan Zuckerberg Initiative (Biohub Investigator Award)

  • Jan M Skotheim

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

Reviewing Editor

  1. Sandeep Krishna, National Centre for Biological Sciences­‐Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, India

Version history

  1. Preprint posted: April 13, 2022 (view preprint)
  2. Received: May 2, 2022
  3. Accepted: September 25, 2022
  4. Accepted Manuscript published: September 30, 2022 (version 1)
  5. Version of Record published: November 11, 2022 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2022, Proulx-Giraldeau 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

  • 1,620
    views
  • 370
    downloads
  • 6
    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. Felix Proulx-Giraldeau
  2. Jan M Skotheim
  3. Paul François
(2022)
Evolution of cell size control is canalized towards adders or sizers by cell cycle structure and selective pressures
eLife 11:e79919.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.79919

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.79919

Further reading

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Computational and Systems Biology
    Richard Sejour, Janet Leatherwood ... Bruce Futcher
    Research Article

    Previously, Tuller et al. found that the first 30–50 codons of the genes of yeast and other eukaryotes are slightly enriched for rare codons. They argued that this slowed translation, and was adaptive because it queued ribosomes to prevent collisions. Today, the translational speeds of different codons are known, and indeed rare codons are translated slowly. We re-examined this 5’ slow translation ‘ramp.’ We confirm that 5’ regions are slightly enriched for rare codons; in addition, they are depleted for downstream Start codons (which are fast), with both effects contributing to slow 5’ translation. However, we also find that the 5’ (and 3’) ends of yeast genes are poorly conserved in evolution, suggesting that they are unstable and turnover relatively rapidly. When a new 5’ end forms de novo, it is likely to include codons that would otherwise be rare. Because evolution has had a relatively short time to select against these codons, 5’ ends are typically slightly enriched for rare, slow codons. Opposite to the expectation of Tuller et al., we show by direct experiment that genes with slowly translated codons at the 5’ end are expressed relatively poorly, and that substituting faster synonymous codons improves expression. Direct experiment shows that slow codons do not prevent downstream ribosome collisions. Further informatic studies suggest that for natural genes, slow 5’ ends are correlated with poor gene expression, opposite to the expectation of Tuller et al. Thus, we conclude that slow 5’ translation is a ‘spandrel’--a non-adaptive consequence of something else, in this case, the turnover of 5’ ends in evolution, and it does not improve translation.

    1. Computational and Systems Biology
    Hedi Chen, Xiaoyu Fan ... Boxue Tian
    Research Article

    Accurate prediction of the structurally diverse complementarity determining region heavy chain 3 (CDR-H3) loop structure remains a primary and long-standing challenge for antibody modeling. Here, we present the H3-OPT toolkit for predicting the 3D structures of monoclonal antibodies and nanobodies. H3-OPT combines the strengths of AlphaFold2 with a pre-trained protein language model and provides a 2.24 Å average RMSD between predicted and experimentally determined CDR-H3 loops, thus outperforming other current computational methods in our non-redundant high-quality dataset. The model was validated by experimentally solving three structures of anti-VEGF nanobodies predicted by H3-OPT. We examined the potential applications of H3-OPT through analyzing antibody surface properties and antibody–antigen interactions. This structural prediction tool can be used to optimize antibody–antigen binding and engineer therapeutic antibodies with biophysical properties for specialized drug administration route.