Coevolution due to physical interactions is not a major driving force behind evolutionary rate covariation

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:
The manuscript titled "Coevolution due to physical interactions is not a major driving force behind evolutionary rate covariation" by Little et al., explores the potential contribution of physical interaction between correlated evolutionary rates among gene pairs. The authors find that physical interaction is not the main driving of evolutionary rate covariation (ECR). This finding is similar to a previous report by Clark et al. (2012), Genome Research, wherein the authors stated that "direct physical interaction is not required to produce ERC." The previous study used 18 Saccharomycotina yeast species, whereas the present study used 332 Saccharomycotina yeast species and 11 outgroup taxa. As a result, the present study is better positioned to evaluate the interplay between physical interaction and ECR more robustly.

Strengths & Weaknesses:
Various analyses nicely support the authors' claims. Accordingly, I have only one significant comment and several minor comments that focus on wordsmithing - e.g., clarifying the interpretation of statistical results and requesting additional citations to support claims in the introduction.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:
The authors address an important outstanding question: what forces are the primary drivers of evolutionary rate covariation? Exploration of this topic is important because it is currently difficult to interpret the functional/mechanistic implications of evolutionary covariation. These analyses also speak to the predictive power (and limits) of evolutionary rate covariation. This study reinforces the existing paradigm that covariation is driven by a varied/mixed set of interaction types that all fall under the umbrella explanation of 'co-functional interactions'.

Strengths:
Very smart experimental design that leverages individual protein domains for increased resolution.

Weaknesses:
Nuanced and sometimes inconclusive results that are difficult to capture in a short title/abstract statement.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:
The paper makes a convincing argument that physical interactions of proteins do not cause substantial evolutionary co-variation.

Strengths:
The presented analyses are reasonable and look correct and the conclusions make sense.

Weaknesses:
The overall problem of the analysis is that nobody who has followed the literature on evolutionary rate variation over the last 20 years would think that physical interactions are a major cause of evolutionary rate variation. First, there have been probably hundreds of studies showing that gene expression level is the primary driver of evolutionary rate variation (see, for example, [1]). The present study doesn't mention this once. People can argue the causes or the strength of the effect, but entirely ignoring this body of literature is a serious lack of scholarship. Second, interacting proteins will likely be co-expressed, so the obvious null hypothesis would be to ask whether their observed rates are higher or lower than expected given their respective gene expression levels. Third, protein-protein interfaces exert a relatively weak selection pressure so I wouldn't expect them to play much role in the overall evolutionary rate of a protein.

On point 3, the authors seem confused though, as they claim a co-evolving interface would evolve *faster* than the rest of the protein (Figure 1, caption). Instead, the observation is they evolve slower (see, for example, [2]). This makes sense: A binding interface adds additional constraint that reduces the rate at which mutations accumulate. However, the effect is rather weak.

All in all, I'm fine with the analysis the authors perform, and I think the conclusions make sense, but the authors have to put some serious effort into reading the relevant literature and then reassess whether they are actually asking a meaningful question and, if so, whether they're doing the best analysis they could do or whether alternative hypotheses or analyses would make more sense.

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4523088/
[2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4854464/