The adaptive landscapes of three global Escherichia coli transcriptional regulators

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

For each of the three key transcription factor (TF) proteins in E. coli, the authors generate a large library of TF binding site (TFBS) sequences on plasmids, such that each TFBS is coupled to the expression of a fluorescence reporter. By sorting the fluorescence of individual cells and sequencing their plasmids to identify each cell's TFBS sequence (sort-seq), they are able to map the landscape of these TFBSs to the gene expression level they regulate. The authors then study the topographical features of these landscapes, especially the number and distribution of local maxima, as well as the statistical properties of evolutionary paths on these landscapes. They find the landscapes to be highly rugged, with about as many local peaks as a random landscape would have, and with those peaks distributed approximately randomly in sequence space. The authors find that there are a number of peaks that produce regulation stronger than that of the wild-type sequence for each TF and that it is not too unlikely to reach one of those "high peaks" from a random starting sequence. Nevertheless, the basins of attractions for different peaks have significant overlap, which means that chance plays a major role in determining which peak a population will evolve to.

Strengths:

(1) The experiments and analysis of this paper are very well-executed and, by and large, very thorough (with an important exception identified below). I appreciated the systematic nature of the project, both the large-scale experiments done on three TFs with replicates and the systematic analysis of the resulting landscapes. This not only makes the paper easy to follow but also inspires confidence in their results since there is so much data and so many different ways of analyzing it. It's a great recipe for other studies of genotype-phenotype landscapes to follow.

(2) Considering how technical the project was, I am really impressed at how easy to read I found the paper, and the authors deserve a lot of credit for making it so. They do a great job of building up the experiments and analyses step-by-step and explaining enough of the basics of the experimental design and the essence of each analysis in the main text without getting too complicated with details that can be left to the Methods or SI. Compared to other big data papers, this one was refreshingly not overwhelming.

Weaknesses:

(1) The main weakness of this paper, in my view, is that it felt disconnected from the larger body of work on fitness and genotype-phenotype landscapes, including previous data on TFBSs in E. coli, genotype-phenotype maps of TFBSs in other systems, protein sequence landscapes (e.g., from mutational scans or combinatorially-complete libraries), and fitness landscapes of genomic mutations (e.g., combinatorially-complete landscapes of antibiotic resistance alleles). I have no doubt the authors are experts in this literature, and they probably cite most of it already given the enormous number of references. But they don't systematically introduce and summarize what was already known from all that work, and how their present study builds on it, in the Abstract and Introduction, which left me wondering for most of the paper why this project was necessary. Eventually, the authors do address most of these points, but not until the end, in the Discussion. Readers who have no familiarity with this literature might read this paper thinking that it's the first paper ever to study topography and evolutionary paths on genotype-phenotype landscapes, which is not true.

There were two points that made this especially confusing for me. First, in order to choose which nucleotides in the binding sites to vary, the authors invoke existing data on the diversity of these sequences (position-weight matrices from RegulonDB). But since those PWMs can imply a genotype-phenotype map themselves, an obvious question I think the authors needed to have answered right away in the Introduction is why it is insufficient for their question. They only make a brief remark much later in the Results that the PWM data is just observed sequence diversity and doesn't directly reflect the regulation strength of every possible TFBS sequence. But that is too subtle in my opinion, and such a critical motivation for their study that it should be a major point in the Introduction.

The second point where the lack of motivation in the Introduction created confusion for me was that they report enormous levels of sign epistasis in their data, to the point where these landscapes look like random uncorrelated landscapes. That was really surprising to me since it contrasts with other empirical landscape data I'm familiar with. It was only in the Discussion that I found some significant explanation of this - namely that this could be a difference between prokaryotic TFBSs, as this paper studies, and the eukaryotic TFBSs that have been the focus of many (almost all?) previous work. If that is in fact the case - that almost all previous studies have focused on eukaryotic TFBSs or other kinds of landscapes, and this is the first to do a systematic test of prokaryotic TFBS, then that should be a clear point made in the Abstract and Introduction. (I find a comparable statement only in the very last paragraph of the Discussion.) If that's the case, then I would also find that point to be a much stronger, more specific conclusion of this paper to emphasize than the more general result of observing epistasis and contingency (as is currently emphasized in the Abstract), which has been discussed in tons of other papers. This raises all sorts of exciting questions for future studies - why do the landscapes of prokaryotic TFBSs differ so dramatically from almost all the other landscapes we've observed in biology? What does that mean for the evolutionary dynamics of these different systems?

(2) I am a bit concerned about the lack of uncertainties incorporated into the results. The authors acknowledge several key limitations of their approach, including the discreteness of the sort-seq bins in determining possible values of regulation strength, the existence of a large number of unsampled sequences in their genotype space, as well as measurement noise in the fluorescence readouts and sequencing. While the authors acknowledge the existence of these factors, I do not see much attempt to actually incorporate the effect of these uncertainties into their conclusions, which I suspect may be important. For example, given the bin size for the fluorescence in sort-seq, how confident are they that every sequence that appears to be a peak is actually a peak? Is it possible that many of the peak sequences have regulation strengths above all their neighbors but within the uncertainty of the fluorescence, making it possible that it's not really a peak? Perhaps such issues would average out and not change the statistical nature of their results, which are not about claiming that specific sequences are peaks, just how many peaks there are. Nevertheless, I think the lack of this robustness analysis makes the results less convincing than they otherwise would be.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

The authors aim to investigate the ability of evolution to create strong transcription factor binding sites (TFBSs) de novo in E. coli. They focus on three global transcriptional regulators: CRP, Fis, and IHF, using a massively parallel reporter assay to evaluate the regulatory effects of over 30,000 TFBS variants. By analyzing the resulting genotype-phenotype landscapes, they explore the ruggedness, accessibility, and evolutionary dynamics of regulatory landscapes, providing insights into the evolutionary feasibility of strong gene regulation. Their experiments show that de novo adaptive evolution of new gene regulation is feasible. It is also subject to a blend of chance, historical contingency, and evolutionary biases that favor some peaks and evolutionary paths.

(1) Strengths of the methods and results:

The authors successfully employed a well-designed sort-seq assay combined with high-throughput sequencing to map regulatory landscapes. The experimental design ensures reliable measurement of regulation strengths. Their system accounts for gene expression noise and normalizes measurements using appropriate controls.

Comprehensive Landscape Mapping:
The study examines ~30,000 TFBS variants per transcription factor, providing statistically robust and thorough maps of the regulatory landscapes for CRP, Fis, and IHF. The landscapes are rigorously analyzed for ruggedness (e.g., number of peaks) and epistasis, revealing parallels with theoretical uncorrelated random landscapes.

Evolutionary Dynamics Simulations:
Through simulations of adaptive walks under varying population dynamics, the authors demonstrate that high peaks in regulatory landscapes are accessible despite ruggedness. They identify key evolutionary phenomena, such as contingency (multiple paths to peaks) and biases toward specific evolutionary outcomes.

Biological Relevance and Novelty:
The author's work is novel in focusing on global regulators, which differ from previously studied local regulators (e.g., TetR). They provide compelling evidence that rugged landscapes are navigable, facilitating de novo evolution of regulatory interactions. The comparison of landscapes for CRP, Fis, and IHF underscores shared topographical features, suggesting general principles of global transcriptional regulation in bacteria.

(2) Weaknesses of the methods and results:

Undersampling of Genotype Space:
While the quality filtering of the data ensures robustness, ~40% of the TFBS space remains uncharacterized. The authors acknowledge this limitation but could improve the analysis by employing subsampling or predictive modeling.

Simplified Regulatory Architecture:
The study considers a minimal system of a single TFBS upstream of a reporter gene. While this may have been necessary for clarity, this simplification may not reflect the combinatorial complexity of transcriptional regulation in vivo.

Lack of Experimental Validation of Simulations:
The adaptive walks are based on simulated dynamics rather than experimental evolution. Incorporating in vivo experimental evolution studies would strengthen the conclusions. Although this is a large request for the paper, that would not prevent publication.

Impact on the Field:
This study advances our understanding of adaptive landscapes in gene regulation and offers a critical step toward deciphering how global regulators evolve de novo binding sites. The findings provide foundational insights for synthetic biology, evolutionary genetics, and systems biology by highlighting the evolutionary accessibility of strong regulation in bacteria.

Utility of Methods and Data:
The sort-seq approach, combined with landscape analysis, provides a robust framework that can be extended to other transcription factors and systems. If made publicly available, the study's data and code would be valuable for researchers modeling transcriptional regulation or studying evolutionary dynamics.

Additional Context:
The study builds on a growing body of work exploring regulatory evolution. For instance, recent studies on local regulators like TetR and AraC have revealed high ruggedness and epistasis in TFBS landscapes. This study distinguishes itself by focusing on global regulators, which are more biologically complex and influential in bacterial gene networks. The observed evolutionary contingency aligns with findings in other biological systems, such as protein evolution and RNA folding landscapes, underscoring the generality of these evolutionary principles.

Conclusion:
The authors successfully mapped the genotype-phenotype landscapes for three global regulators and simulated evolutionary dynamics to assess the feasibility of strong TFBS evolution. They convincingly demonstrate that ruggedness and epistasis, while prominent, do not preclude the evolution of strong regulation. Their results support the notion that gene regulation evolves through a blend of chance, contingency, and evolutionary biases.

This paper makes a significant contribution to the understanding of regulatory evolution in bacteria. While minor limitations exist, the authors' methods are robust, and their findings are well-supported. The work will likely be of broad interest to researchers in molecular evolution, synthetic biology, and gene regulation.