Skip to main content
bioRxiv
  • Home
  • About
  • Submit
  • ALERTS / RSS
Advanced Search
New Results

Viral gain-of-function experiments uncover residues under diversifying selection in nature

Rohan Maddamsetti, Daniel T. Johnson, Stephanie J. Spielman, Katherine L. Petrie, Debora S. Marks, Justin R. Meyer
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/242495
Rohan Maddamsetti
1Department of Systems Biology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Daniel T. Johnson
2Division of Biological Sciences, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Stephanie J. Spielman
3Institute for Genomics and Evolutionary Medicine, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Katherine L. Petrie
2Division of Biological Sciences, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA
4Earth-Life Science Institute, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Japan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Debora S. Marks
1Department of Systems Biology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Justin R. Meyer
2Division of Biological Sciences, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Abstract
  • Full Text
  • Info/History
  • Metrics
  • Preview PDF
Loading

Abstract

Viral gain-of-function mutations are commonly observed in the laboratory; however, it is unknown whether those mutations also evolve in nature. We identify two key residues in the host recognition protein of bacteriophage λ that are necessary to exploit a new receptor; both residues repeatedly evolved among homologs from environmental samples. Our results provide evidence for widespread host-shift evolution in nature and a proof of concept for integrating experiments with genomic epidemiology.

Many viruses can expand their host range with a few mutations1-3 that enable the exploitation of new cellular receptors2,3. Such mutations may be the first steps toward an epidemic outbreak; this observation has driven an expansion of theoretical4, experimental and surveillance studies of host-range shifts in emergent pathogens, including avian influenza5-8, coronaviruses9,10, HIV11 and ebolavirus12. Ideally, laboratory evolution experiments could be used to accelerate our understanding of how viruses expand their host range. However, it is not clear whether viral evolution observed under the chemical and physical environments of a laboratory can faithfully inform us about viral evolution in nature, for at least two reasons. First, evolutionary trajectories might be sensitive to differences in environmental conditions between the laboratory and nature. Second, the number of evolutionary paths sampled in laboratory experiments is very small compared to natural virus diversity due to the enormous size of viral populations. Indeed, some researchers have called for the suspension of virus gain-of-function laboratory experiments13 on the grounds that they would tell us little about real-world viral evolution at the risk of constructing viral strains that are pandemic to new hosts. Here, we use a harmless virus, bacteriophage λ, to demonstrate how gain-of-function experiments can identify mutations that mimic those that occur in nature: we find that two amino acid residues that are critical for gain of function in the laboratory recurrently evolve in nature.

Typical laboratory strains of λ infect Escherichia coli by binding to the outer membrane protein LamB14, but the phage rapidly evolves in the laboratory to exploit a different membrane protein, OmpF3. Since OmpF is not the usual E. coli receptor for λ, these experiments are a proxy for the ability of the phage to switch hosts. The evolved gain-of-function phenotype in λ, OmpF+, involves multiple non-synonymous mutations in the host-recognition gene J. Each OmpF+ isolate had between 4 and 10 single nucleotide substitutions in J, and none had insertions or deletions (indels). 97% of the substitutions in 24 independently evolved OmpF+ λ phage occurred in the J protein3 between residues 960 —1132, which we call the ‘specificity region’ of J (Figure 1A).

Figure 1
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
Figure 1

A) Distribution of J mutations evolved en route to OmpF+ and B) synthetic phage genotypes capable of using OmpF. A) Mutations summed across 24 genomes independently evolved to exploit OmpF in Meyer et al. (2012). Protein domains as annotated in the Pfam database are shown in gray. The majority of mutations either occur in the DUF3672 domain, or in the C-terminus past the annotated boundary of DUF3672. B) Synthetic OmpF+ genotypes indicated by colored cells (red marks the canonical three) observed after combinatorial engineering of 10 common mutations or 19 mutations when the canonical three were fixed. Amino acid and nucleotide changes are indicated by positions bookended by the wild-type state and then the evolved state. Amino acids in position 997 and 1107 have multiple derived states.

By comparing J among OmpF+ and OmpF− λ, Meyer et al. (2012) suggested that the OmpF+ innovation required four mutations: one at residue 1012, two in the codon for residue 1107, and a fourth mutation somewhere between residues 990 to 10003. In this study, we directly tested this hypothesis by using Multiplexed Automated Genome Engineering (MAGE)15 to construct two combinatorial genetic libraries of the J mutations that evolved in Meyer et al. (2012). We constructed the first library by focusing on 10 commonly evolved J mutations3, from which we sequenced 33 OmpF+ isolates. All strains possessed the target mutation at residue 1012 and both target mutations at residue 1107; by contrast, some strains lacked a fourth mutation between residues 990 and 1000 (Figure 1). We call the mutations at residues 1012 and 1107 the “canonical mutations”.

To test whether the three canonical mutations were sufficient to confer the OmpF+ phenotype, we constructed a synthetic phage with just these mutations. Even though the synthetic phage was viable, it proved unable to exploit cells without the ancestral LamB receptor, demonstrating that at least four J mutations were necessary for laboratory-evolved OmpF+ phage. To find what further mutations might be needed to confer the OmpF+ phenotype, we constructed a second MAGE library using the phage with the three canonical J mutations as the baseline, and random combinations of 19 other J mutations found in the OmpF+ λ evolved by Meyer et al. (2012). Screening this second library produced 88 OmpF+ isolates. One OmpF+ isolate had just a single extra mutation in amino acid position 1083 in addition to the three canonical mutations (Figure 1). However, the majority of the OmpF+ genotypes did not possess this specific mutation, signifying that its function could be substituted by other J mutations. In total, this experiment revealed that four mutations are sufficient to evolve the innovation, but only two specific amino acid changes (at residues 1012 and 1107) are universally required to access OmpF in the context of laboratory experiments.

We then asked whether natural J sequences reflected the host-shift evolutionary dynamics seen in our gain-of-function experiments. We collected and aligned full-length homologous J protein sequences from UniRef10016 (1,207 highly similar sequences). Most sequences were prophage uncovered in the genomes of their Enterobacteriaceae hosts, including bacterial genera Escherichia, Salmonella, Citrobacter, Edwardsiella, and even Cronobacter.

Recall that 97% of substitutions in OmpF+ gain-of-function experiments occur in the specificity region. Likewise, the natural J homologs had disproportionate variation here: 30% of the total amino acid variation occurred in the specificity region, despite only being 15% of the total length of J (Figure 2A). This nonrandom clustering of variation in the specificity region strongly suggests that J has experienced substantial diversifying selection on host attachment. Furthermore, the 17 residues engineered into the MAGE libraries were significantly more variable than randomly chosen groups of 17 residues from J (non-parametric bootstrap: p < 10−5) and from the specificity region 960-1132 (non-parametric bootstrap: p = 0.0054) showing the experiments had identified evolutionary hotspots. However, the specific 17 amino acid substitutions evolved in the laboratory were not common in natural homologs suggesting that the selection experiments had the resolution to predict where changes would evolve, but not the exact change (Supplementary Figure 1).

Figure 2
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
Figure 2

A) Sequence entropy averaged over a 10-residue window in J. Dashed red lines indicate residues 1012 and 1107. B) Gap entropy over the J protein. Dashed red lines indicate residues 1012 and 1107. C) Phylogeny for J protein. Only a subset of the operational taxonomic units (OTUs) are displayed: just OTUs with sequences ≥ 5% divergence from each other. The wild-type J protein sequence is labeled in tan. Clades with indels at residue 1012 are labeled in lavender. Clades with indels at residue 1107 are labeled in light green. Sequences with indels at both positions are labeled in light steel gray. D) Phylogeny for residues 960–1132 of J protein. OTUs have at least 5% divergence from each other, and are labeled as in (C).

Focusing in on the two residues critical for the OmpF+ gain of function, 1012 and 1107, we find that they alone are more variable than random pairs of sites in J (non-parametric bootstrap: p = 0.00101) and the specificity region (non-parametric bootstrap: p = 0.036). But what is more remarkable is the observation that in-frame indels are common in the regions around sites 1012 and 1107 (Figure 2B; Supplementary Data 1). We measured indel variation over J homologs using gap entropy: a two-state entropy counting each position in each aligned sequence as a gap or non-gap. Residues 1010–1013 and 1107–1109 have the highest gap entropy in J, ranging from 0.799 to 0.893 out of a maximum of 1.000 (Figure 2B; Supplementary Data 2). For comparison, the typical amino acid site in the J alignment had no indels (mode and median gap entropy = 0). That our experiments would correctly identify both regions with the most natural indel variation by chance is extremely unlikely (given the size of each region and the protein length Embedded Image. Indels can have large beneficial effects on proteins, including altering specificity by changing surface loops14,17, or causing structural rearrangements that improve function18.

To analyze J protein evolutionary dynamics in more depth, we built maximum-likelihood phylogenetic trees for J (Figure 2C) and its specificity region (Figure 2D). The trees are very different (normalized Robinson-Foulds distance = 0.94 out of 1.00), indicating that recombination has caused the history of the specificity region to differ from the history of the rest of the protein. This means that the specificity region is an evolutionary module that commonly recombines and circulates as a unit in the phage population. This observation supports the notion that this region has elevated rates of evolution and diversification.

Using the second phylogeny, we calculated site-specific evolutionary rates for the specificity region. The 17 residues studied in the MAGE experiments evolve faster than equally-sized random samples taken from the specificity region (non-parametric bootstrap, p = 0.0067) and residues 1012 and 1107 evolve faster than random pairs of sites sampled from the specificity region (non-parametric bootstrap, p = 0.0073).

Together, the accelerated rate of change and increased entropy at residues 1012 and 1107 suggest that these sites have experienced strong diversifying selection. Our combinatorial genetic studies showed that these particular residues determine receptor tropism, so it is reasonable to conclude that their unique evolution is due to host-range evolution. Mathematical theory has demonstrated that receptor-use evolution should lead to diversification since accessing new host types alters the phages’ ecological niches19. Indeed, diversification was observed in a related experiment where λ evolved to exploit two host cell types with different receptors20. To test whether indels at 1012 and 1107 cause diversification, we compared the branches where indels occur versus all others. If the indels cause ecological differentiation, then they should reduce intraspecific competition for hosts and facilitate the long-term maintenance of distinct evolutionary lineages. Indeed, the branches on which indels occur are significantly longer than the other branches of the specificity-region phylogeny (Kruskal-Wallis test, p < 10−8; visualized by the discrete indel clades colored in lavender and light green in Figure 2D).

The congruence we find between laboratory and natural evolution in λ contrasts with work showing that beneficial mutations in Richard Lenski’s long-term experiment anticorrelate21 with natural protein variation in E. coli. By design, Lenski’s experiment lacks the complex and variable selection pressures found in E. coli’s natural gut environment, leading the bacteria down evolutionary paths not taken in nature. By contrast, the dominant selection pressure in evolution experiments with bacteriophage— attachment to bacterial host cells— is probably also a dominant selection pressure on phage in the wild. Notably, another study on experimental evolution of bacteriophage has observed residues under positive selection in both the lab and nature22.

Together, these studies show that selection experiments on viruses cultured in the laboratory can inform evolution in nature. Based on the patterns of J sequence variation observed, we suggest that host-range evolution is common in this group of viruses, and perhaps others too. While the frequency of host-range evolution may be unsettling, our work also demonstrates potential methods to combat host shifts. In particular, worrisome mutations can be identified with functional genetic experiments as described here or with other laboratory techniques such as deep mutational scanning23. This information can be combined with genomic surveillance efforts underway24,25 to devise more effective disease management strategies to eradicate problematic strains.

Methods

MAGE experiments

We modified λ strain cI857 (provided by Ing-Nang Wang, SUNY Albany) integrated into the genome of HWEC106 (provided by Harris Wang, Columbia University). We engineered the J substitutions into λ by using MAGE15,26 on strain HWEC106. MAGE uses the λ-red recombineering system provided on the pKD46 plasmid27. For a description of the oligos used, see Supplementary Table S1.

For the first, 10-mutation library, we ran 18 rounds of MAGE and then screened for OmpF+ isolates. For the second library, we edited λ with oligos ‘a3034g’ and ‘g3319a t3321a’ to introduce the canonical three mutations. Next, we performed a number of different MAGE trials in order to maximize the number of unique alleles we observed. See Supplementary Table S2 for our MAGE strategy.

To screen the edited phage for OmpF+ genotypes, we induced the MAGE lysogen libraries and plated the phage on lawns of lamB− E. coli strain JW3996 from the KEIO collection28. Plaques were picked from the lawns and the C-terminus of the J gene was Sanger sequenced at the Genewiz La Jolla, CA facility. Unpurified PCR products (Forward primer: 5’ CGCATCGTTCACCTCTCACT; Reverse primer: 5’ CCTGCGGGCGGTTTGTCATTT) were submitted.

Analysis of natural J variation

We used the evcouplings pipeline29 to generate a jackhmmer30 alignment of 1,207 full-length J homologs (parameter settings: bitscore = 0.2; theta = 0.999; seqid_filter = 95 and 99 (thresholds for filtering highly similar sequences); minimum_sequence_coverage = 99 (require sequences to align to 99% of wild-type J protein); and minimum_sequence_coverage = 50. When analyzing the specificity region (say, constructing a phylogeny), we used residues 960-1132 of this full-length alignment.

We used RAxML31 to generate maximum-likelihood phylogenies using automatically selected amino acid substitution matrices (PROTGAMMAAUTO) based on model fit. To account for recombination when estimating site-specific evolutionary rates in the specificity region, we first ran a modified SBP algorithm32 on the specificity region. We found a putative recombination breakpoint at residue 1000, supported by Akaike’s information criterion but not the Bayesian information criterion. We therefore partitioned the specificity region at residue 1000 and re-calculated trees for each partition using FastTree33 with an LG substitution matrix34. We next calculated site-specific evolutionary rates with LEISR35, a scalable implementation of Rate4Site36 that accounts for recombination breakpoints, using an LG substitution matrix. We calculated the Robinson-Foulds distance between our maximum-likelihood phylogenies for J and its specificity region using ete3-compare37. We divided the Robinson-Foulds distance (2276.00) by its maximum possible value (2412.00) to get the normalized distance (0.94).

We calculated gap entropy at each position as: − [p · log2 (p) + (1 − p) · log2(1−p)], where p is the frequency of gap characters at that position, and 1 -p is the frequency of all amino acids at that position.

For all non-parametric bootstrap calculations, we used 100,000 bootstraps, and chose groups of sites without replacement. For example, when testing for high entropy in the 17 MAGE residues, we generated an empirical null distribution by randomly choosing 17 different residues for one sample, and resampling 100,000 times. We used the same procedure for our evolutionary-rate tests.

Data Availability

All data and analysis code for this project are available at the Dryad digital repository [doi: pending publication]

Author contributions

R.M. designed and conceived the study. D.T.J. conducted MAGE experiments. K.L.P. analyzed initial MAGE data. R.M. and S.S. performed statistical and phylogenetic analyses. R.M., D.S.M., and J.R.M. wrote the paper and everyone edited it.

Competing Interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Acknowledgments

We thank John Ingraham, Adam Riesselman, Kelly Brock, David Ding, and Alita Burmeister for helpful discussions. K.L.P. is supported by the ELSI Origins Network (EON), which is funded by the John Templeton Foundation. The ideas expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the funding sources.

Footnotes

  • ↵* jrmeyer{at}ucsd.edu

References

  1. ↵
    Longdon, B., Brockhurst, M. A., Russell, C. A., Welch, J. J. & Jiggins, F. M. The evolution and genetics of virus host shifts. PLoS Pathog 10, e1004395, doi:10.1371/journal.ppat.1004395 (2014).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    Imai, M. et al. Experimental adaptation of an influenza H5 HA confers respiratory droplet transmission to a reassortant H5 HA/H1N1 virus in ferrets. Nature 486, 420–428, doi:10.1038/nature 10831 (2012).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  3. ↵
    Meyer, J. R. et al. Repeatability and contingency in the evolution of a key innovation in phage lambda. Science 335, 428–432, doi:10.1126/science.1214449 (2012).
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. ↵
    Antia, R., Regoes, R. R., Koella, J. C. & Bergstrom, C. T. The role of evolution in the emergence of infectious diseases. Nature 426, 658–661, doi:10.1038/nature02104 (2003).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  5. ↵
    Shi, Y., Wu, Y., Zhang, W., Qi, J. & Gao, G. F. Enabling the ‘host jump’: structural determinants of receptor-binding specificity in influenza A viruses. Nature reviews. Microbiology 12, 822–831, doi:10.1038/nrmicro3362 (2014).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. Song, H. et al. Avian-to-Human Receptor-Binding Adaptation by Influenza A Virus Hemagglutinin H4. Cell reports 20, 1201–1214, doi:10.1016/j.celrep.2017.07.028 (2017).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  7. Koel, B. F. et al. Substitutions near the receptor binding site determine major antigenic change during influenza virus evolution. Science 342, 976–979, doi:10.1126/science.1244730 (2013).
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. ↵
    Linster, M. et al. Identification, characterization, and natural selection of mutations driving airborne transmission of A/H5N1 virus. Cell 157, 329–339, doi:10.1016/j.cell.2014.02.040 (2014).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    de Wit, E., van Doremalen, N., Falzarano, D. & Munster, V. J. SARS and MERS: recent insights into emerging coronaviruses. Nature reviews. Microbiology 14, 523–534, doi:10.1038/nrmicro.2016.81 (2016).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  10. ↵
    Lu, G. et al. Molecular basis of binding between novel human coronavirus MERS-CoV and its receptor CD26. Nature 500, 227–231, doi:10.1038/nature12328 (2013).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  11. ↵
    Rambaut, A., Posada, D., Crandall, K. A. & Holmes, E. C. The causes and consequences of HIV evolution. Nature Reviews Genetics 5, 52, doi:10.1038/nrg1246 (2004).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  12. ↵
    Holmes, E. C., Dudas, G., Rambaut, A. & Andersen, K. G. The evolution of Ebola virus: Insights from the 2013-2016 epidemic. Nature 538, 193–200, doi:10.1038/nature19790 (2016).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. ↵
    Casadevall, A. & Imperiale, M. J. Risks and benefits of gain-of-function experiments with pathogens of pandemic potential, such as influenza virus: a call for a science-based discussion. MBio 5, e01730–01714, doi:10.1128/mBio.01730-14 (2014).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. ↵
    Chatterjee, S. & Rothenberg, E. Interaction of bacteriophage l with its E. coli receptor, LamB. Viruses 4, 3162–3178, doi:10.3390/v4113162 (2012).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  15. ↵
    Wang, H. H. et al. Programming cells by multiplex genome engineering and accelerated evolution. Nature 460, 894–898, doi:10.1038/nature08187 (2009).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  16. ↵
    Suzek, B. E., Wang, Y., Huang, H., McGarvey, P. B. & Wu, C. H. UniRef clusters: a comprehensive and scalable alternative for improving sequence similarity searches. Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) 31, 926–932, doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btu739 (2015).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. ↵
    Porcek, N. B. & Parent, K. N. Key residues of S. flexneri OmpA mediate infection by bacteriophage Sf6. Journal of molecular biology 427, 1964–1976, doi:10.1016/j.jmb.2015.03.012 (2015).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. ↵
    Arpino, J. A., Reddington, S. C., Halliwell, L. M., Rizkallah, P. J. & Jones, D. D. Random single amino acid deletion sampling unveils structural tolerance and the benefits of helical registry shift on GFP folding and structure. Structure (London, England: 1993) 22, 889–898, doi:10.1016/j.str.2014.03.014 (2014).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  19. ↵
    Weitz, J. S., Hartman, H. & Levin, S. A. Coevolutionary arms races between bacteria and bacteriophage. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 102, 9535–9540, doi:10.1073/pnas.0504062102 (2005).
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  20. ↵
    Meyer, J. R. et al. Ecological speciation of bacteriophage lambda in allopatry and sympatry. Science 354, 1301–1304, doi:10.1126/science.aai8446 (2016).
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  21. ↵
    Maddamsetti, R. et al. Core Genes Evolve Rapidly in the Long-term Evolution Experiment with Escherichia coli. Genome biology and evolution, doi:10.1093/gbe/evx064 (2017).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  22. ↵
    Wichman, H. A., Scott, L. A., Yarber, C. D. & Bull, J. J. Experimental evolution recapitulates natural evolution. Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences 355, 1677–1684, doi:10.1098/rstb.2000.0731 (2000).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  23. ↵
    Bloom, J. D. Identification of positive selection in genes is greatly improved by using experimentally informed site-specific models. Biology direct 12, 1, doi:10.1186/s13062-016-0172-z (2017).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  24. ↵
    Gire, S. K. et al. Genomic surveillance elucidates Ebola virus origin and transmission during the 2014 outbreak. Science 345, 1369–1372, doi:10.1126/science.1259657 (2014).
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  25. ↵
    Grubaugh, N. D. et al. Genomic epidemiology reveals multiple introductions of Zika virus into the United States. Nature 546, 401–405, doi:10.1038/nature22400 (2017).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. ↵
    Wang, H. H. & Church, G. M. Multiplexed genome engineering and genotyping methods applications for synthetic biology and metabolic engineering. Methods in enzymology 498, 409–426, doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-385120-8.00018-8 (2011).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  27. ↵
    Datsenko, K. A. & Wanner, B. L. One-step inactivation of chromosomal genes in Escherichia coli K-12 using PCR products. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 97, 6640–6645, doi:10.1073/pnas.120163297 (2000).
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  28. ↵
    Baba, T. et al. Construction of Escherichia coli K-12 in-frame, single-gene knockout mutants: the Keio collection. Molecular systems biology 2, 2006.0008, doi:10.1038/msb4100050 (2006).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  29. ↵
    Hopf, T. A. et al. Mutation effects predicted from sequence co-variation. Nature biotechnology 35, 128–135, doi:10.1038/nbt.3769 (2017).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. ↵
    Eddy, S. R. Accelerated Profile HMM Searches. PLoS computational biology 7, e1002195, doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002195 (2011).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. ↵
    Stamatakis, A. RAxML version 8: a tool for phylogenetic analysis and post-analysis of large phylogenies. Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) 30, 1312–1313, doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btu033 (2014).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  32. ↵
    Kosakovsky Pond, S. L., Posada, D., Gravenor, M. B., Woelk, C. H. & Frost, S. D. Automated phylogenetic detection of recombination using a genetic algorithm. Molecular biology and evolution 23, 1891–1901, doi:10.1093/molbev/msl051 (2006).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  33. ↵
    Price, M. N., Dehal, P. S. & Arkin, A. P. FastTree 2–approximately maximum-likelihood trees for large alignments. PloS one 5, e9490, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0009490 (2010).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. ↵
    Le, S. Q., & Gascuel, O. An improved general amino acid replacement matrix. Molecular biology and evolution 25, 1307–1320, doi:10.1093/molbev/msn067 (2008).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  35. ↵
    Spielman, S. J., & Pond, S. L. K. Relative evolutionary rate inference in HyPhy with LEISR. bioRxiv (2017).
  36. ↵
    Pupko, T., Bell, R. E., Mayrose, I., Glaser, F. & Ben-Tal, N. Rate4Site: an algorithmic tool for the identification of functional regions in proteins by surface mapping of evolutionary determinants within their homologues. Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) 18 Suppl 1, S71–77 (2002).
    OpenUrl
  37. ↵
    Huerta-Cepas, J., Serra, F. & Bork, P. ETE 3: Reconstruction, Analysis, and Visualization of Phylogenomic Data. Molecular biology and evolution 33, 1635–1638, doi:10.1093/molbev/msw046 (2016).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
Back to top
PreviousNext
Posted January 03, 2018.
Download PDF
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about bioRxiv.

NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Viral gain-of-function experiments uncover residues under diversifying selection in nature
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from bioRxiv
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the bioRxiv website.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Viral gain-of-function experiments uncover residues under diversifying selection in nature
Rohan Maddamsetti, Daniel T. Johnson, Stephanie J. Spielman, Katherine L. Petrie, Debora S. Marks, Justin R. Meyer
bioRxiv 242495; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/242495
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
Viral gain-of-function experiments uncover residues under diversifying selection in nature
Rohan Maddamsetti, Daniel T. Johnson, Stephanie J. Spielman, Katherine L. Petrie, Debora S. Marks, Justin R. Meyer
bioRxiv 242495; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/242495

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Subject Area

  • Evolutionary Biology
Subject Areas
All Articles
  • Animal Behavior and Cognition (3701)
  • Biochemistry (7820)
  • Bioengineering (5695)
  • Bioinformatics (21343)
  • Biophysics (10603)
  • Cancer Biology (8206)
  • Cell Biology (11974)
  • Clinical Trials (138)
  • Developmental Biology (6786)
  • Ecology (10425)
  • Epidemiology (2065)
  • Evolutionary Biology (13908)
  • Genetics (9731)
  • Genomics (13109)
  • Immunology (8171)
  • Microbiology (20064)
  • Molecular Biology (7875)
  • Neuroscience (43171)
  • Paleontology (321)
  • Pathology (1282)
  • Pharmacology and Toxicology (2267)
  • Physiology (3363)
  • Plant Biology (7254)
  • Scientific Communication and Education (1316)
  • Synthetic Biology (2012)
  • Systems Biology (5550)
  • Zoology (1133)